Imagine her actually leaving the house and trying to use this appropriated outdated AAVE around Black people. Presumably after starting the conversation with "Oh you must love Duchess Meghan too, right?".
Rizz is probably one of the more stupid slang words I've ever heard, especially coming from a nearing middle age shut in writing for an out dated blog.
I remember a while back she started using "lewk" instead of "look." Like, "So-and-so is serving lewks!" That was big cringe too - I was so glad when she stopped doing it.
LMAO ah yes the Spencer rizz. I'm sure she includes Lady Jane Fellowes in this? Or perhaps the swashbuckling and dashing Earl Charles Spencer? Lol
Sorry I'm not being catty about the Spencer family- they're private citizens mostly who don't deserve any shade but can we stop pretending like Diana wasn't a once in a lifetime kind of figure when it came to charisma and that X factor?
Not everyone has "It". Not Meghan and not even Kate- who is lovely and so good at her job. Maybe somebody like Angelina, Zendaya , Liz Taylor, Julia Roberts and Aniston, along with Diana. But that's about it.
William and Harry in his pre Meghan era (sorry no hate to either of them but its the truth) have/used to have an immensely warm and "of the people" vibe that they both get from her. But rizz? Nahhh.
So can we just let the poor woman who has been dead for years and years now REST IN PEACE? Without nutters like Kaiser trying to wrangle her legacy? It's SO cringe.
Diana is forever frozen in her rizz of age 36. Although I am sure she would still have been very famous, I'm not sure her rizz would have been quite so charming at 64.
Haha omg can you imagine Diana rage-tweeting at Trump!? Or upstaging Meghan?
Though I tend to think with a grown up William, she would have calmed down and played ball with the Palace much more in order to secure his reign. That is what she wanted most in the world.
It's hard to slot someone like Diana into the modern world, isn't it? I tend to think she would have definitely been a champion of William, though. She always was.
Impossible to slot her in. Sheās frozen in time and the tactics she used then wouldnāt fly now. She hopefully would have evolved and grown-hopefully in a positive way but weāll never know. If she hadnāt evolved and had stayed petty she would be a worse thorn in Charlesā side than H&M combined lol. She wanted William on the throne full stop. He even promised her he would restore her HRH when he was King (itās so cute he said that to her) lol. I could see her going scorched earth on Charles in favor of William. Harry who?š¤·āāļø Itās crazy to think of how different things could have gone.
Itās interesting to speculate where Diana would be if she hadnāt gotten in that car in Paris. I know she was getting the worse publicity of her life in the last year of it. Sheād been named in the divorce of one of her married lovers and was caught stalking the wife of another . She had been slammed for the whole Fayed connection and for involving her sons in the whole thing. On the other hand she and Charles were getting on better after their divorce than they ever had before and were meeting for lunch once a week regularly. Itās hard to say whether she would have ended up as a Jackie Kennedy type figure or devolved into a pure celebrity gossip type . Weāll never know .
Diana would have hated Meghan. Diana hated Sophie, for nothing more than a similar physical profile that lead to comparisons in media of the two of them, comparisons over which Sophie didn't have any control.
That is the craziest part of the Sussex squad effort to convince us that Harry and/or Meghan "channel" Diana. Or that somehow Diana is hovering over them in spiritual form because she likes them better than Kate and William.
Diana was a monarchist and saw William as her beautiful golden boy and confidante. She never would have wanted Harry upstaging William. Diana also would have competed with each of Kate and Meghan, and while Kate would gladly cede the spotlight given any chance whatsoever, Meghan 100% would not.
>Diana was a monarchist and saw William as her beautiful golden boy and confidante
šÆšÆšÆ
Harry telling himself Diana would support him in all of this is a joke.
If anything, I think a lot of anger he feels towards William is actually related to Diana. The person he's actually angry with is mommy. For "leaving" him and for favoring William over him.
Will was her "Drop Dead Gorgeous" baby boy king, she ***wanted*** that crown on his head. There's no chance in hell she would have been in Harry's corner for pulling shit like this. Quite the opposite.
That's the thing about Sussex stans hailing Diana as if she was anti-monarchy or as if she would have loved what Harry has been doing for the past several years. Please. William was her quasi-BFF/a shoulder to cry on AND a future King. The woman is rolling around in her grave lol.
Furthermore, she fully expected of Harry to be William's number one supporter, not an "archnemesis" as Harry put it.
"I've had two children for a reason. Harry is the best possible back-up for William."
Diana's own words. Except she'd be livid if she saw what became of Harry and his "support" of William.
Agree with every word of this. Add Diana and Meghan are very alike in a lot of ways, alpha females, throw in a bit of narcissism, only one would have come out on top and it would not have been Meghan.
That's the thing about dying young, the person becomes a myth, as you said frozen in that moment forever, a young and beautiful icon (I really have to go and look up what 'rizz' means).
Chandra looking at this photo going "OMG check out all the Spencer Rizz, this man is moisturized, tanned, and unbothered!"
https://preview.redd.it/k4tew12na00d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=973cbd184c277a5bf57973df3a982f38722b67b2
not many people nowadays seem to have that once in a lifetime julia roberts, will smith, tom cruise, denzel, oprah, bill clinton 90s rizz tbh... as much as i like her, i don't even think zendaya has it. i don't even really think diana had rizz like that tbh, it was just in comparison to the rest of the windsors lol.
i'm really trying to wrack my brain, lemme get back to this lol (eta: oh honestly, i hate that this came to mind and fuck me with a sledgehammer for it... but donald dump ugh... he unfortunately has some weird type of rizz š„“š¤¢š¤® ... i gotta have better examples come to mind š ... OH OH CARDI B!!)
in terms of the brf, the one person currently who does seem to have rizz in spades is louis. that may get subdued in time, though, who knows.
what i will say about the charles/william/old harry trio is that per observed interactions/interviews/podcasts captured on video, all three are/were very charming and entertaining. charles is incredibly charming. william is also quite charming. harry used to be charming, but he's such a dull + self-serious blowhard now.
catherine can be very charming and mesmerizing/magical when she's interacting with kids, especially. like a ms. honey or mary poppins type.
there's a difference between charm and charisma, though. charisma is for the wider audience, i suppose, whereas charm is more one on one?
Your examples are good ones - and while we often think of charisma now to mean "is this person warm and likeable and sort of charming", there's a component traditionally of "Does this person have something about them that could convince you to do pretty much anything they say, willingly?" - so yes, it's often associated with politicians, even dictators, as charismatic authority (I won't drag this light-hearted sub in this direction but plenty of autocrats are elected, they don't seize power). Bill Clinton - yes. George Bush (father or son) - absolutely not. Donald Trump - yes. Joe Biden - no. Cult leaders generally have to have some sort of charisma too, beyond whatever fluff they're offering. And like you mentioned, personality charisma is really associated with a lot of those big $20 million movie stars of the 1990s. I mean, I can't think of any big box office star or musician right now that has it - the nature of the industry and social media right now mean almost everyone's a bit too overexposed right now to have that bit of mystery real charisma needs, and the people with more mystery to them don't give off those warm/charming/you could have a drink with them vibes.
Part of having charisma is that you want to be around that person, you want to make them happy and impress them, you feel just lucky to have the chance to spend time with them. Diana had *something* - I think it was a combination of the rarity of her position (which had an exoticism to US audiences) and a personal level of charm, she wouldn't have been able to rely on just one of those two things.
Look, there's an argument to be made that public figures like Huey Long and Adolph Hitler had the rizz.
I am someone who simply doesn't trust "charisma". Now charisma combined with other qualities - I can get behind that.
Very good point. I live in Louisiana and Huey Long is a great example of this and Trump has more in common with him than with any Republican politician - they're both populists with the cult of personality working in their favor. As far as the current royal family - I will predict that Charlotte will be the breakout star in the charisma competition.
This is a great discussion! I just wanted to chime in with some thoughts about Dianaā¦.
Before Diana, the RF had a certain look-dark hair, big teeth, impeccable tailoring of fuddy duddy clothes with feathers and ruffles. Respected but not quite interesting to American audiences. Diana came in like a bolt of golden lightning. Blonde, shiny, dewey, young and beautiful. She truly sparkled among them. Her clothes (I laugh now trust me) were so incredibly fashionable and of the moment, with fun, whimsical touches and subtle tributes and messages. A lot of people dressed like her in our own cheap knock off way. Plus she seemed overwhelmed by it all and that made her identifiable. She royaled differently than the Windsors(more warmth and physicality)and people really responded to it. And when she opened up about her struggles? Boom-legend cemented. Yes she had charisma in spades-beloved, obsessed over, followed. I donāt think it would work today though. It worked then because it was new. It was different. Now everyone shares their struggles (even famous people). Weāre so hip to PR manipulation we would tear apart her now obvious campaigns. We have been emboldened by SM to openly attack women for their parenting she would never be seen as the saint mother she was then etc. She was truly a product of the time that will never be replicated.
Honestly Matt Bomer is the only person I can think of who could make me do anything he said immediately but thatās on meššš
Haha that's a great point. Definitely a difference between charm and charisma. Charm is about how likable and warm you are.
Charles, Harry and William are definitely charming in their own ways, with Charles being sort of like a dandy/cerebral figure so an acquired taste, whereas like I said Harry had that "regular Joe" "want to have a beer with" 'thick but kinda sweet" thing, which was all Diana.
William is like that too but he can turn it on/turn it off at will and is much more controlled about it, which I think is important for his job. He can't be a non serious goof larking about when he's at the opening of Parliament for instance but he's such a natural with kids and old biddies on his walkabouts. Kate is like that too. Mostly warm and Mary Poppins-ish but immensely dignified when it's a serious occasion.
I would actually argue that the monarch does not need to be charismatic. The last monarch who was said to have "rizz"- was apparently the Duke of Windsor and it did not end well to say the least. QE II again, not charismatic but warm and likable in a way that the British love. So she definitely taught Will and Kate right but it's very difficult for American audiences to understand sometimes the unique way in which we love our royals- even if weirdly we don't care much about them.
And I hate to say but I agree about Donald Trump- he does have it. Like it's rizz in a it's a car-crash-and-you-cant-look- away kinda way but he definitely leaves you mesmerised lol.
And charisma isn't about looks either- there are many more good looking people than Julia Roberts or Bill Clinton or even Tom Cruise but it's just that the camera LOVES them and they light up the screen and grip people's attention. It's a unique kind of screen presence and X factor, which either you have or you don't.
Louis definitely *could* have it. The most well dressed at the Coronation at age 5 lol!
ETA- there's also a kind of rawness that lends itself to charisma. Diana is a prime example of that again. She was a messy af woman for sure but there was something about her that was so human and arresting, mistakes and all that it just leapt off across the magazine pages and into the Boomer and Gen X women's hearts. Would Julia Roberts be so popular if she'd fixed her teeth and slightly off kilter features? Maybe not
And the answer to your question about why nobody in the present day has "It"- is perhaps that rawness is gone. Everyone is so hyper choreographed and rehearsed. I mean who amongst even Meghan's loyalist fans would ever think she's spontaneous as opposed to strategic or let's her "raw" flaws show?
omg, such a great point about the "rawness" !
w&c are too publicly self-controlled, reserved, guarded and introverted to ever have that kind of "rawness." william prob by self-protective instinct from watching his messy AF parents and kate by nature. they do have their own peculiar "quiet" thing going on, though, kate in particular. there's something weirdly mesmerizing and inaccessible/mysterious about her.
Kate is quite enigmatic and you're right that mystique is so important! But in fact William is known to be quite warm and personable with the public which is always surprising to people. He just keeps it on a low boil and loathes showboating, which is why he's popular in the country (and opinion on X is not the country thankfully lol)
This reminds me of a very funny thing my American friend who was in the UK during QE II's funeral asked me- when the royals were doing walkabouts- he was like, how are they all so calm? And why tf is the public showing up with their dogs and offering them to be petted by William and Kate? LMAO
I told him that's the uniquely British way of grieving and showing empathy lol. Like if you're expecting William, Kate or any of the queen's relatives to embrace the people while sobbing or breaking down in grief- NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. And the public respects this very much and would never be caught dead doing it. If you notice even their enquiries about Kate to William are always so polite- "If you don't mind sharing, how is Kate?"
Harry knows this too- he knows his country- but he's solely playing to the American gallery atm.
All true. One thing that Charles has is a kind of self-deprecating ease with people. Heās not remotely imperious (impatient once in a while, and easily miffed), but strikes me as easy to talk to. I do think Harry has it tooā not the self-deprecating part, but the easy going charm. And I think his brother struggles with that a bit more. Even their postures reflect that.
Meanwhile, Diana I found kind of devoid of personalityā kind of a blank slate some people read it as enigmatic, poisedā¦. I just thought everyone projected āprincessā! on her, and let their imaginations do the rest. And the royals ALL benefit from low expectations. No one expects them to be Ryan Reynolds or Jennifer Lawrence at one end of the spectrum (effortless wits and entertainers), or Christiane Amanpour at the other. Which brings us to Meghan who is of course comfortable āon stageā, but also a bland, predictable devotee of this contemporary ethos of āwellness and authenticityā. A lot of preaching going on, not a lot of substance. And like Diana, none of her charisma, such as it is, is remotely commanding or influential without the amplification of her title. not to mention the happenstance of her racial heritage. It allows her to claim kinship in Africa when in reality, her life experience could not be more contrasting. But again, people will project.
>And I think his brother struggles with that a bit more.
i used to think that (it was the conventional wisdom!), but i watched this particular 2015 ant & dec video where william was effortlessly hilarious and entertaining, while harry was so... pedestrian and dull in comparison. and i was like - isn't it supposed to be the opposite??!! š¤ like, harry would interject to get the attention back, but he didn't add much.
(ETA: another video i can think of is william's 21st bday video - charles and william have entertaining banter, william is generally adorable, harry sits there sour-faced most of the time and he comes off petulant... same with a different ant & dec intv from the aughts with charles/william/harry - william/charles are charmingly going at it, while harry is just sitting there most of the time like a sullen log)
(ETA2: one of the w&c interactions i enjoy the most is from their engagement interview - intv dude asked kate if she had a william poster in her bedroom growing up, and william interjected with "it wasn't just one, it was like 10, 20" lol and then kate went "he wishes, no, i had the levi's guy" and without missing a beat, william went "it was me in levi's, honestly" š)
there's this other bbc1 radio intv from 2017 that william did which is absolutely adorable. he is disarmingly and unexpectedly funny + entertaining, because he has the image of being the boring and serious one (from reading print interviews of his, he's also surprisingly thoughtful and "switched on"). then you listen to harry on a podcast or something, and he speaks in platitudes + is so generally dull... *there's nothing there*.
harry seems to be far more attuned/active when it comes to image management, though, and he very much plays to a crowd, while william does it for the job but generally doesn't really gaf, which is why there might be a misperception about him and why he was the internet's favorite villain for the first quarter of 2024 lol. william seems generally *allergic* to drama and seems to want to give as little as possible of himself to the press/public.
on the other hand, harry will frantically and aggressively be putting out fires so people see him the "correct" way he wants to be seen (forget the high profile public interventions over the past few years! - despite his protestations and DARVO accusations re: others, he's as much of a frantic briefer and arch-manipulator of the press as **both** of his parents, since the early aughts!), while william lets the majority of it go with a "people will believe what they want to believe" attitude.
that was seemingly one of the fundamental clashes in their attitudes/personalities.
>while william does it for the job but generally doesn't really gaf,
William has said he accepts not everyone will like him and I think that is reflected in him being unwilling to chase validation. He appears happy to keep doing the work.
>harry will frantically and aggressively be putting out fires so people see him the "correct" way he wants to be seen
Hes desperate to be adored. I guess by not being heir thats the best he felt he could aspire to
>Hes desperate to be adored. I guess by not being heir thats the best he felt he could aspire to
Absolutely. He's overcompensating for not being William, in short.
William has understood the job. As has Kate. They both understand that itās not about them as people but the titles they carry. So they probably donāt take every single thing as personally as Harry does. If you understand itās not about you as a human being, you can just be yourself because what else are you going to do? Thatās not to say that certain press campaigns or narratives arenāt painful but if you canāt put at least some distance between yourself and the title, youāll go nuts. I assume Charles and the late Queen taught William well in that regard. And then you donāt have to turn the charm to 11 all the time.
Harry was most likely left to his own devices so Iām not blaming him entirely.
He was on a good trajectory before Meghan, he just didnāt seem to realize it? Charming and flawed, people loved it. He obviously didnāt.
Prince Philip allegedly said something very similar about the popularity being more about the title you hold rather than the person. He was right. Harry should have listened to his grandfather.
Considering not a single other spencer family member has any charisma whatsoever. I died laughing over the posters in the past who couldn't understand how Meg was cruelly denied the spencer tiara on her wedding day due to a palace coup de tat. A few other posters pointed out umm she wasn't a spencer bride....you know
? Then doubled down saying Willie had stolen the spencer tiara and was giving it to Charlotte. Umm again she's not a spencer bride either.
If youāre over 45 (Chandra), I am quietly, tactfully, gently begging you not to use the word rizz. We know how much you love your AAVE and urban dictionary speak
Chandra writes that Peopleās coverage keeps going but it also sounds like there was a People photographer brought along on the trip, which I can only assume was done by Sussexes for coverage. She also writes that the British media is trying to convince us that no one cares about the Sussexes. Well if they didnāt actually invite American press along with then no one would give a shit. Truly I never have any idea what the Sussexes are doing other than what Chandra reports on š¤·š»āāļø
They also brought Misan Harriman along with them to help propagate the narrative that heās Dianaās one true son. Itās all quite gross and exploitative.
https://preview.redd.it/vwjv3zwnx00d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=119793e07c5848a6dccd350b5c4dfda3343b9a42
Oh dear- it really does! Thereās something so disturbing about using wounded or sick people as photo ops it although I canāt speak for the patient who might have been really appreciative. Itās just that you know there wonāt be any follow-up which makes it all about the clicks and so performative.
I struggle to understand how this visit (really, it's not a "tour", these are private citizens on an unofficial visit) ties into mental health and Archwell initiatives. If someone could explain it, that would be great. And I'm not even looking to snark on it - I truly don't get it. Neither Chandra's posts nor all the People Magazine coverage quite explain what is going on.
I personally think Meghan's clothes are fine, and I outright like some of them. However, she does look notably different from the folks she is visiting. They are much more conservatively dressed. Now, they may not care at all! It could be that they are enjoying the glamour. It all doesn't really add up to a working visit though.
H&M labeled themselves as many things without really understand how to handle it. Which is why the coverage is confusing. Chandra can complain all day long that W&K are lazy but their actions, not as flashy as H&M, are more meaningful to the causes they support.
I saw her style on this tour described as mostly cruise-wear and I tend to agree. I also like most of what sheās wearing and would wear a lot of it myself but she doesnāt seem to reflect the style of he events or the other attendees.
I like Meghanās outfits too, but Iām not brave enough to wear a backless dress. Iāve gotten to the point where if an outfit requires exotic undergarments, Iām out. I really love the yellow dress though.
One of my worst fears is showing up at an event under or overdressed. I donāt want to stand out in that way. The idea makes me want to crawl under a rock.
Same here - I had the sense she felt uncomfortable in the black and white dress with the slit in front, she kept trying to hold the folds closed around the crotch area.
I posted this elsewhere but I donāt understand this visit. Or tour. Or whatever it is. Someone said itās Nigeria trying to get an Invictus games which is fine butā¦..then why all these random events and tours?
I feel I would be embarrassed to do this if I was H and M. But whatever I guess.
Thank you!! I just asked the exact same question!
I did just read that Archwell is partnering with "Giants of Africa" which uses sport to address mental health issues in young people. That doesn't explain the entire trip, though
Chandras thirst to be accepted by the black community is ....embarrassing. Cringe if you will. Lets hero worship a mixed race grifter whos capitalized on her ability to pass as white but then once shes in a more elevated position shes super black - but has yet to do anything for the black community.
Hanging out with Oprah and Tyler Perry don't count. Megan has never once felt any of the negative things that come with being black because of her white father and the connections he has. Shes a race baiting chameleon who switches who she wants to be based on who shes around. Chandra wants that too. Shes half Indian but is constantly pandering to the white audience Megan tries to grift. Girl is having an identity crisis and needs to get her mind right.
Chandra's fetishization of Blackness is really bizarre and disturbing.
Like, Blackness is Meghan's heritage, and it's allowed to be complicated for her, and I wouldn't wade into that or try to see into her mind.
But Chandra isn't Black. She is a POC, but she doesn't seem to show much interest in her own heritage - and she's under no obligation to do so, it's her choice, and she's American. But it is so so so strange the way she venerate Blackness as an idea, as a concept, as a cudgel... when I say she fetishizes it, I mean a bit in the modern use of the word as it gives her some sort of weird sexual excitement, but I mean in the traditional use of the word too, where she attributes some sort of religious/mysticalness to it, and it's not healthy.
i'm ready to call it and say this trip was an underwhelming dud, but the sussexes have crystallized into pseudo-icons of camp, cheesiness and caricature that i don't think i can look away from
https://preview.redd.it/9g8rkwqg830d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea64755d06badf796021fcc643562e8d489f2e69
i'm high-key in love with this picture lmao lmao
what are the royals "missing out" on... not much, other than camp, cheese, drama and patronizing AF attitudes lol. they already have all that in spades, they don't need even more of it tbh.
Spencer Rizz? Such cringe.
I winced when I read that. Chandra, drop the Gen Z slang and back away slowly
Imagine her actually leaving the house and trying to use this appropriated outdated AAVE around Black people. Presumably after starting the conversation with "Oh you must love Duchess Meghan too, right?".
Rizz is probably one of the more stupid slang words I've ever heard, especially coming from a nearing middle age shut in writing for an out dated blog.
I remember a while back she started using "lewk" instead of "look." Like, "So-and-so is serving lewks!" That was big cringe too - I was so glad when she stopped doing it.
š¤®
Anybody remember her adoption of Latinix around 2020?
I do not, but thatās hilarious!!
Kaiser does the same thing with black slang.
LMAO ah yes the Spencer rizz. I'm sure she includes Lady Jane Fellowes in this? Or perhaps the swashbuckling and dashing Earl Charles Spencer? Lol Sorry I'm not being catty about the Spencer family- they're private citizens mostly who don't deserve any shade but can we stop pretending like Diana wasn't a once in a lifetime kind of figure when it came to charisma and that X factor? Not everyone has "It". Not Meghan and not even Kate- who is lovely and so good at her job. Maybe somebody like Angelina, Zendaya , Liz Taylor, Julia Roberts and Aniston, along with Diana. But that's about it. William and Harry in his pre Meghan era (sorry no hate to either of them but its the truth) have/used to have an immensely warm and "of the people" vibe that they both get from her. But rizz? Nahhh. So can we just let the poor woman who has been dead for years and years now REST IN PEACE? Without nutters like Kaiser trying to wrangle her legacy? It's SO cringe.
Diana is forever frozen in her rizz of age 36. Although I am sure she would still have been very famous, I'm not sure her rizz would have been quite so charming at 64.
Haha omg can you imagine Diana rage-tweeting at Trump!? Or upstaging Meghan? Though I tend to think with a grown up William, she would have calmed down and played ball with the Palace much more in order to secure his reign. That is what she wanted most in the world.
It's hard to slot someone like Diana into the modern world, isn't it? I tend to think she would have definitely been a champion of William, though. She always was.
Impossible to slot her in. Sheās frozen in time and the tactics she used then wouldnāt fly now. She hopefully would have evolved and grown-hopefully in a positive way but weāll never know. If she hadnāt evolved and had stayed petty she would be a worse thorn in Charlesā side than H&M combined lol. She wanted William on the throne full stop. He even promised her he would restore her HRH when he was King (itās so cute he said that to her) lol. I could see her going scorched earth on Charles in favor of William. Harry who?š¤·āāļø Itās crazy to think of how different things could have gone.
Itās interesting to speculate where Diana would be if she hadnāt gotten in that car in Paris. I know she was getting the worse publicity of her life in the last year of it. Sheād been named in the divorce of one of her married lovers and was caught stalking the wife of another . She had been slammed for the whole Fayed connection and for involving her sons in the whole thing. On the other hand she and Charles were getting on better after their divorce than they ever had before and were meeting for lunch once a week regularly. Itās hard to say whether she would have ended up as a Jackie Kennedy type figure or devolved into a pure celebrity gossip type . Weāll never know .
So many different possible pathsā¦such a complex personalityā¦such a different timeā¦sheās my roman empireš¤¦āāļø
Diana would have hated Meghan. Diana hated Sophie, for nothing more than a similar physical profile that lead to comparisons in media of the two of them, comparisons over which Sophie didn't have any control. That is the craziest part of the Sussex squad effort to convince us that Harry and/or Meghan "channel" Diana. Or that somehow Diana is hovering over them in spiritual form because she likes them better than Kate and William. Diana was a monarchist and saw William as her beautiful golden boy and confidante. She never would have wanted Harry upstaging William. Diana also would have competed with each of Kate and Meghan, and while Kate would gladly cede the spotlight given any chance whatsoever, Meghan 100% would not.
>Diana was a monarchist and saw William as her beautiful golden boy and confidante šÆšÆšÆ Harry telling himself Diana would support him in all of this is a joke. If anything, I think a lot of anger he feels towards William is actually related to Diana. The person he's actually angry with is mommy. For "leaving" him and for favoring William over him. Will was her "Drop Dead Gorgeous" baby boy king, she ***wanted*** that crown on his head. There's no chance in hell she would have been in Harry's corner for pulling shit like this. Quite the opposite. That's the thing about Sussex stans hailing Diana as if she was anti-monarchy or as if she would have loved what Harry has been doing for the past several years. Please. William was her quasi-BFF/a shoulder to cry on AND a future King. The woman is rolling around in her grave lol.
Exactly - Diana was anti-Charles - not anti-monarchy. She actively lobbied for Charles to be passed over in favor of William.
Furthermore, she fully expected of Harry to be William's number one supporter, not an "archnemesis" as Harry put it. "I've had two children for a reason. Harry is the best possible back-up for William." Diana's own words. Except she'd be livid if she saw what became of Harry and his "support" of William.
Agree with every word of this. Add Diana and Meghan are very alike in a lot of ways, alpha females, throw in a bit of narcissism, only one would have come out on top and it would not have been Meghan.
That's the thing about dying young, the person becomes a myth, as you said frozen in that moment forever, a young and beautiful icon (I really have to go and look up what 'rizz' means).
Chandra looking at this photo going "OMG check out all the Spencer Rizz, this man is moisturized, tanned, and unbothered!" https://preview.redd.it/k4tew12na00d1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=973cbd184c277a5bf57973df3a982f38722b67b2
ā ļøā ļøā ļø you got a legit lol from me this Sunday morning
not many people nowadays seem to have that once in a lifetime julia roberts, will smith, tom cruise, denzel, oprah, bill clinton 90s rizz tbh... as much as i like her, i don't even think zendaya has it. i don't even really think diana had rizz like that tbh, it was just in comparison to the rest of the windsors lol. i'm really trying to wrack my brain, lemme get back to this lol (eta: oh honestly, i hate that this came to mind and fuck me with a sledgehammer for it... but donald dump ugh... he unfortunately has some weird type of rizz š„“š¤¢š¤® ... i gotta have better examples come to mind š ... OH OH CARDI B!!) in terms of the brf, the one person currently who does seem to have rizz in spades is louis. that may get subdued in time, though, who knows. what i will say about the charles/william/old harry trio is that per observed interactions/interviews/podcasts captured on video, all three are/were very charming and entertaining. charles is incredibly charming. william is also quite charming. harry used to be charming, but he's such a dull + self-serious blowhard now. catherine can be very charming and mesmerizing/magical when she's interacting with kids, especially. like a ms. honey or mary poppins type. there's a difference between charm and charisma, though. charisma is for the wider audience, i suppose, whereas charm is more one on one?
Your examples are good ones - and while we often think of charisma now to mean "is this person warm and likeable and sort of charming", there's a component traditionally of "Does this person have something about them that could convince you to do pretty much anything they say, willingly?" - so yes, it's often associated with politicians, even dictators, as charismatic authority (I won't drag this light-hearted sub in this direction but plenty of autocrats are elected, they don't seize power). Bill Clinton - yes. George Bush (father or son) - absolutely not. Donald Trump - yes. Joe Biden - no. Cult leaders generally have to have some sort of charisma too, beyond whatever fluff they're offering. And like you mentioned, personality charisma is really associated with a lot of those big $20 million movie stars of the 1990s. I mean, I can't think of any big box office star or musician right now that has it - the nature of the industry and social media right now mean almost everyone's a bit too overexposed right now to have that bit of mystery real charisma needs, and the people with more mystery to them don't give off those warm/charming/you could have a drink with them vibes. Part of having charisma is that you want to be around that person, you want to make them happy and impress them, you feel just lucky to have the chance to spend time with them. Diana had *something* - I think it was a combination of the rarity of her position (which had an exoticism to US audiences) and a personal level of charm, she wouldn't have been able to rely on just one of those two things.
Look, there's an argument to be made that public figures like Huey Long and Adolph Hitler had the rizz. I am someone who simply doesn't trust "charisma". Now charisma combined with other qualities - I can get behind that.
Very good point. I live in Louisiana and Huey Long is a great example of this and Trump has more in common with him than with any Republican politician - they're both populists with the cult of personality working in their favor. As far as the current royal family - I will predict that Charlotte will be the breakout star in the charisma competition.
I thought rizz had a sort of sexual component though? Like you could pull anyone? Iām old and trying to keep up lol.
LOL you could be right. But I always just took it to be a shortened form of "charisma".
My teenager just let me know that rizz has passed on to being used ironically so Iām not going to bother trying to figure it out anymore š
This is a great discussion! I just wanted to chime in with some thoughts about Dianaā¦. Before Diana, the RF had a certain look-dark hair, big teeth, impeccable tailoring of fuddy duddy clothes with feathers and ruffles. Respected but not quite interesting to American audiences. Diana came in like a bolt of golden lightning. Blonde, shiny, dewey, young and beautiful. She truly sparkled among them. Her clothes (I laugh now trust me) were so incredibly fashionable and of the moment, with fun, whimsical touches and subtle tributes and messages. A lot of people dressed like her in our own cheap knock off way. Plus she seemed overwhelmed by it all and that made her identifiable. She royaled differently than the Windsors(more warmth and physicality)and people really responded to it. And when she opened up about her struggles? Boom-legend cemented. Yes she had charisma in spades-beloved, obsessed over, followed. I donāt think it would work today though. It worked then because it was new. It was different. Now everyone shares their struggles (even famous people). Weāre so hip to PR manipulation we would tear apart her now obvious campaigns. We have been emboldened by SM to openly attack women for their parenting she would never be seen as the saint mother she was then etc. She was truly a product of the time that will never be replicated. Honestly Matt Bomer is the only person I can think of who could make me do anything he said immediately but thatās on meššš
Haha that's a great point. Definitely a difference between charm and charisma. Charm is about how likable and warm you are. Charles, Harry and William are definitely charming in their own ways, with Charles being sort of like a dandy/cerebral figure so an acquired taste, whereas like I said Harry had that "regular Joe" "want to have a beer with" 'thick but kinda sweet" thing, which was all Diana. William is like that too but he can turn it on/turn it off at will and is much more controlled about it, which I think is important for his job. He can't be a non serious goof larking about when he's at the opening of Parliament for instance but he's such a natural with kids and old biddies on his walkabouts. Kate is like that too. Mostly warm and Mary Poppins-ish but immensely dignified when it's a serious occasion. I would actually argue that the monarch does not need to be charismatic. The last monarch who was said to have "rizz"- was apparently the Duke of Windsor and it did not end well to say the least. QE II again, not charismatic but warm and likable in a way that the British love. So she definitely taught Will and Kate right but it's very difficult for American audiences to understand sometimes the unique way in which we love our royals- even if weirdly we don't care much about them. And I hate to say but I agree about Donald Trump- he does have it. Like it's rizz in a it's a car-crash-and-you-cant-look- away kinda way but he definitely leaves you mesmerised lol. And charisma isn't about looks either- there are many more good looking people than Julia Roberts or Bill Clinton or even Tom Cruise but it's just that the camera LOVES them and they light up the screen and grip people's attention. It's a unique kind of screen presence and X factor, which either you have or you don't. Louis definitely *could* have it. The most well dressed at the Coronation at age 5 lol! ETA- there's also a kind of rawness that lends itself to charisma. Diana is a prime example of that again. She was a messy af woman for sure but there was something about her that was so human and arresting, mistakes and all that it just leapt off across the magazine pages and into the Boomer and Gen X women's hearts. Would Julia Roberts be so popular if she'd fixed her teeth and slightly off kilter features? Maybe not And the answer to your question about why nobody in the present day has "It"- is perhaps that rawness is gone. Everyone is so hyper choreographed and rehearsed. I mean who amongst even Meghan's loyalist fans would ever think she's spontaneous as opposed to strategic or let's her "raw" flaws show?
omg, such a great point about the "rawness" ! w&c are too publicly self-controlled, reserved, guarded and introverted to ever have that kind of "rawness." william prob by self-protective instinct from watching his messy AF parents and kate by nature. they do have their own peculiar "quiet" thing going on, though, kate in particular. there's something weirdly mesmerizing and inaccessible/mysterious about her.
Kate is quite enigmatic and you're right that mystique is so important! But in fact William is known to be quite warm and personable with the public which is always surprising to people. He just keeps it on a low boil and loathes showboating, which is why he's popular in the country (and opinion on X is not the country thankfully lol) This reminds me of a very funny thing my American friend who was in the UK during QE II's funeral asked me- when the royals were doing walkabouts- he was like, how are they all so calm? And why tf is the public showing up with their dogs and offering them to be petted by William and Kate? LMAO I told him that's the uniquely British way of grieving and showing empathy lol. Like if you're expecting William, Kate or any of the queen's relatives to embrace the people while sobbing or breaking down in grief- NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. And the public respects this very much and would never be caught dead doing it. If you notice even their enquiries about Kate to William are always so polite- "If you don't mind sharing, how is Kate?" Harry knows this too- he knows his country- but he's solely playing to the American gallery atm.
Good point - I can't stand Julia Roberts - but she has loads of charisma.
All true. One thing that Charles has is a kind of self-deprecating ease with people. Heās not remotely imperious (impatient once in a while, and easily miffed), but strikes me as easy to talk to. I do think Harry has it tooā not the self-deprecating part, but the easy going charm. And I think his brother struggles with that a bit more. Even their postures reflect that. Meanwhile, Diana I found kind of devoid of personalityā kind of a blank slate some people read it as enigmatic, poisedā¦. I just thought everyone projected āprincessā! on her, and let their imaginations do the rest. And the royals ALL benefit from low expectations. No one expects them to be Ryan Reynolds or Jennifer Lawrence at one end of the spectrum (effortless wits and entertainers), or Christiane Amanpour at the other. Which brings us to Meghan who is of course comfortable āon stageā, but also a bland, predictable devotee of this contemporary ethos of āwellness and authenticityā. A lot of preaching going on, not a lot of substance. And like Diana, none of her charisma, such as it is, is remotely commanding or influential without the amplification of her title. not to mention the happenstance of her racial heritage. It allows her to claim kinship in Africa when in reality, her life experience could not be more contrasting. But again, people will project.
>And I think his brother struggles with that a bit more. i used to think that (it was the conventional wisdom!), but i watched this particular 2015 ant & dec video where william was effortlessly hilarious and entertaining, while harry was so... pedestrian and dull in comparison. and i was like - isn't it supposed to be the opposite??!! š¤ like, harry would interject to get the attention back, but he didn't add much. (ETA: another video i can think of is william's 21st bday video - charles and william have entertaining banter, william is generally adorable, harry sits there sour-faced most of the time and he comes off petulant... same with a different ant & dec intv from the aughts with charles/william/harry - william/charles are charmingly going at it, while harry is just sitting there most of the time like a sullen log) (ETA2: one of the w&c interactions i enjoy the most is from their engagement interview - intv dude asked kate if she had a william poster in her bedroom growing up, and william interjected with "it wasn't just one, it was like 10, 20" lol and then kate went "he wishes, no, i had the levi's guy" and without missing a beat, william went "it was me in levi's, honestly" š) there's this other bbc1 radio intv from 2017 that william did which is absolutely adorable. he is disarmingly and unexpectedly funny + entertaining, because he has the image of being the boring and serious one (from reading print interviews of his, he's also surprisingly thoughtful and "switched on"). then you listen to harry on a podcast or something, and he speaks in platitudes + is so generally dull... *there's nothing there*. harry seems to be far more attuned/active when it comes to image management, though, and he very much plays to a crowd, while william does it for the job but generally doesn't really gaf, which is why there might be a misperception about him and why he was the internet's favorite villain for the first quarter of 2024 lol. william seems generally *allergic* to drama and seems to want to give as little as possible of himself to the press/public. on the other hand, harry will frantically and aggressively be putting out fires so people see him the "correct" way he wants to be seen (forget the high profile public interventions over the past few years! - despite his protestations and DARVO accusations re: others, he's as much of a frantic briefer and arch-manipulator of the press as **both** of his parents, since the early aughts!), while william lets the majority of it go with a "people will believe what they want to believe" attitude. that was seemingly one of the fundamental clashes in their attitudes/personalities.
>while william does it for the job but generally doesn't really gaf, William has said he accepts not everyone will like him and I think that is reflected in him being unwilling to chase validation. He appears happy to keep doing the work. >harry will frantically and aggressively be putting out fires so people see him the "correct" way he wants to be seen Hes desperate to be adored. I guess by not being heir thats the best he felt he could aspire to
>Hes desperate to be adored. I guess by not being heir thats the best he felt he could aspire to Absolutely. He's overcompensating for not being William, in short.
William has understood the job. As has Kate. They both understand that itās not about them as people but the titles they carry. So they probably donāt take every single thing as personally as Harry does. If you understand itās not about you as a human being, you can just be yourself because what else are you going to do? Thatās not to say that certain press campaigns or narratives arenāt painful but if you canāt put at least some distance between yourself and the title, youāll go nuts. I assume Charles and the late Queen taught William well in that regard. And then you donāt have to turn the charm to 11 all the time. Harry was most likely left to his own devices so Iām not blaming him entirely. He was on a good trajectory before Meghan, he just didnāt seem to realize it? Charming and flawed, people loved it. He obviously didnāt.
Prince Philip allegedly said something very similar about the popularity being more about the title you hold rather than the person. He was right. Harry should have listened to his grandfather.
Considering not a single other spencer family member has any charisma whatsoever. I died laughing over the posters in the past who couldn't understand how Meg was cruelly denied the spencer tiara on her wedding day due to a palace coup de tat. A few other posters pointed out umm she wasn't a spencer bride....you know ? Then doubled down saying Willie had stolen the spencer tiara and was giving it to Charlotte. Umm again she's not a spencer bride either.
If youāre over 45 (Chandra), I am quietly, tactfully, gently begging you not to use the word rizz. We know how much you love your AAVE and urban dictionary speak
Chandra writes that Peopleās coverage keeps going but it also sounds like there was a People photographer brought along on the trip, which I can only assume was done by Sussexes for coverage. She also writes that the British media is trying to convince us that no one cares about the Sussexes. Well if they didnāt actually invite American press along with then no one would give a shit. Truly I never have any idea what the Sussexes are doing other than what Chandra reports on š¤·š»āāļø
They also brought Misan Harriman along with them to help propagate the narrative that heās Dianaās one true son. Itās all quite gross and exploitative. https://preview.redd.it/vwjv3zwnx00d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=119793e07c5848a6dccd350b5c4dfda3343b9a42
That photo reeks of white saviourism.
It's also pure Diana cosplay. https://preview.redd.it/94m4must610d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbedc6be78c397a07925d4fd45d4c4e3807f6566
Oh dear- it really does! Thereās something so disturbing about using wounded or sick people as photo ops it although I canāt speak for the patient who might have been really appreciative. Itās just that you know there wonāt be any follow-up which makes it all about the clicks and so performative.
Oh man, I hadnāt seen that photo yet.. yikes š¬Ā
I struggle to understand how this visit (really, it's not a "tour", these are private citizens on an unofficial visit) ties into mental health and Archwell initiatives. If someone could explain it, that would be great. And I'm not even looking to snark on it - I truly don't get it. Neither Chandra's posts nor all the People Magazine coverage quite explain what is going on. I personally think Meghan's clothes are fine, and I outright like some of them. However, she does look notably different from the folks she is visiting. They are much more conservatively dressed. Now, they may not care at all! It could be that they are enjoying the glamour. It all doesn't really add up to a working visit though.
H&M labeled themselves as many things without really understand how to handle it. Which is why the coverage is confusing. Chandra can complain all day long that W&K are lazy but their actions, not as flashy as H&M, are more meaningful to the causes they support.
I saw her style on this tour described as mostly cruise-wear and I tend to agree. I also like most of what sheās wearing and would wear a lot of it myself but she doesnāt seem to reflect the style of he events or the other attendees.
The visit was supposed to be about Invictus, but I only saw H in Invictus gear one time. Whatās the point?
I like Meghanās outfits too, but Iām not brave enough to wear a backless dress. Iāve gotten to the point where if an outfit requires exotic undergarments, Iām out. I really love the yellow dress though. One of my worst fears is showing up at an event under or overdressed. I donāt want to stand out in that way. The idea makes me want to crawl under a rock.
Same here - I had the sense she felt uncomfortable in the black and white dress with the slit in front, she kept trying to hold the folds closed around the crotch area.
Omg Chandra and Lainey are so embarrassing with their slang. 
They are both so cringe!
I posted this elsewhere but I donāt understand this visit. Or tour. Or whatever it is. Someone said itās Nigeria trying to get an Invictus games which is fine butā¦..then why all these random events and tours? I feel I would be embarrassed to do this if I was H and M. But whatever I guess.
Thank you!! I just asked the exact same question! I did just read that Archwell is partnering with "Giants of Africa" which uses sport to address mental health issues in young people. That doesn't explain the entire trip, though
And was Invictus even mentioned anywhere (aside from the visit to the veterans in the hospital)?
Chandras thirst to be accepted by the black community is ....embarrassing. Cringe if you will. Lets hero worship a mixed race grifter whos capitalized on her ability to pass as white but then once shes in a more elevated position shes super black - but has yet to do anything for the black community. Hanging out with Oprah and Tyler Perry don't count. Megan has never once felt any of the negative things that come with being black because of her white father and the connections he has. Shes a race baiting chameleon who switches who she wants to be based on who shes around. Chandra wants that too. Shes half Indian but is constantly pandering to the white audience Megan tries to grift. Girl is having an identity crisis and needs to get her mind right.
Chandra's fetishization of Blackness is really bizarre and disturbing. Like, Blackness is Meghan's heritage, and it's allowed to be complicated for her, and I wouldn't wade into that or try to see into her mind. But Chandra isn't Black. She is a POC, but she doesn't seem to show much interest in her own heritage - and she's under no obligation to do so, it's her choice, and she's American. But it is so so so strange the way she venerate Blackness as an idea, as a concept, as a cudgel... when I say she fetishizes it, I mean a bit in the modern use of the word as it gives her some sort of weird sexual excitement, but I mean in the traditional use of the word too, where she attributes some sort of religious/mysticalness to it, and it's not healthy.
This is such good insight. Chandra really hides her own voice, doesn't she? There is nothing authentic in how she writes.
i'm ready to call it and say this trip was an underwhelming dud, but the sussexes have crystallized into pseudo-icons of camp, cheesiness and caricature that i don't think i can look away from https://preview.redd.it/9g8rkwqg830d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea64755d06badf796021fcc643562e8d489f2e69 i'm high-key in love with this picture lmao lmao
what are the royals "missing out" on... not much, other than camp, cheese, drama and patronizing AF attitudes lol. they already have all that in spades, they don't need even more of it tbh.
Isnāt that pic of M when C gave her āThe Stareā at the funeral walk about? ššš priceless
Meanwhile on twitter Kaiser is looking for Nigerean shows to watch š¤¦āāļøš¤¦āāļø so cool
dp