The announcement that Archewell was partnering with the VING project came the day after Valentine Low’s book, ‘Courtiers’ was released (6 October 2022). Perhaps it was a bit of defection after dial-a-pap at TMZ took more than a day to negotiate a price for some photos of the duo at a freebie Jack Johnson concert? It seemed to be well-timed after most outlets ignored the Archetypes podcast, and no one seemed to be interested in the duo out on a date either.
As ever, TW is trying to convince the world she is a humanitarian by ‘teaching’ teens to be philanthropists by using funds from other people, and is trying to wing it as a charitable deed. All I can see is Archewell and Spotify getting some PR and some data information from a young and easy to prey upon audience, while VING (the mugs) do all the work.
The initial reports on the partnership were confusing and vague, and just what is the point of the partnership? Was Archewell donating money for PR, or just selling the Archewell brand and Sussex title for PR?
The VING project has been around since 2014, where it encourages 14-18 year olds to nominate someone in need to receive $1,000 as a grant. What does the Archewell partnership actually do that isn’t being done already?
The longwinded and confusing press release didn’t make much sense after the Today show promoted the partnership in such a vague way, I don’t they even understood what they were saying.
Here is the basic gist of the partnership from what I can see from the word salad press release:
The partnership is to promote Archewell, Spotify and Archetypes, and VING, in the hope that people will donate to Archewell and VING.
The press release doesn’t state that Archewell has donated money to VING, but the wording suggests that a donation might have been made. Media reports suggest that Archewell has made a donation by use of throwing in the $1 million figure, but that is not what is said.
The idea of the partnership is to encourage teenagers to ‘give’ and learn to be philanthropists. This is hard to take seriously from TW, who refused to help pay her father’s medical bills, and this was before she met TOS. Instead, she preferred to use the money to jet around the world and to brag about it on Instagram. Charity begins at home, so TW isn’t exactly a good role model. TW has a father and sister who have medical bills (due to their illnesses) and there is no indication that she has offered to assist them.
Archetypes is supposed to have ‘inspired’ strong women, so this campaign is for 14-18 year olds to nominate a woman (over the age of 18 and who is a US resident) who is in financial need, and who has inspired them. Some readers have suggested that Samantha Markle should be nominated, as she has been defamed by her sister and is challenging her in a court case.
TW only mentions that she supports women and the spirit of giving, and doesn’t say that Archewell is actually donating anything but publicity for the project, where they will get clicks on the website to gain personal data.
The $1 million figure is vague, as that seems to be a target and not what is in the pot. The money seems to be backed by the Lefkofsky family, so why do they need Archewell?
The overall view is that TW is promoting Archetypes/Spotify and Archewell to a young, gullible, and impressionable audience, and by capturing their data can recruit them as followers under the guise of a potential $1,000 grant for someone they know.
Is part of the partnership to allow Archewell to have access to the database, or those who use the Archetypes nomination form, and then for Archewell to use it as a story on their website? There doesn’t seem to be any mention of this on the website, and if any information will be shared. Is this is data mining exercise under the guise of attracting teens to give up their personal details?
VING, are assuming that a partnership with someone with a royal title will be good PR for them. After a couple of days, Facebook got 2 likes and 3 shares and zero comments. Looks like teens aren’t on Facebook these days. Instagram got 29 comments and 223 likes, and Twitter fared a little better with 295 comments and just over 2,500 likes (but assume the cult have at least 3 accounts each). What VING didn’t realise that this royal title is tainted and damaged.
There is a misconception that a royal title automatically ensures positive PR. The Sussexes have been selling themselves on the titles, but surely this monetising must stop, just as other European Royal Houses have put a stop to those who have used their titles in commercial ventures. In the case of Norway, the titles were not used, and in other cases the titles have been removed for lesser titles.
While many believe the dukedom of Sussex should be revoked as the duo are monetising the titles, shouldn’t it be stripped back as the royal ducal title was given with a view that TOS and his spouse would be representing the RF? As they no longer represent the RF, C3 would have the right to strip it back to the same level of his brother Edward, who is a working member of the RF, and whose mother was a Monarch.
Given that the TOS and TW are unlikely to ever return as working members of the RF (or be accepted), then the ducal title serves no purpose, except for the duo to exploit and to monetise. Therefore, C3, in keeping with his declaration to streamline the monarchy, should reduce the Sussexes to be Dumbartons. I’m sure the people of Dumbarton will be rather vocal if the duo try and monetise that title—that is if they choose to use it. As for the invisible ‘children’, they are unlikely to ever be working members of the RF, therefore, would not require the use of any titles, and as such it would be pointless giving them titles that would never be used in the correct context. The Queen of Denmark has carried out this move in recently (removing prince and princess titles from grandchildren who will not carry out royal duties), and is a move that many other European Royal Houses have taken or have planned.
The media reporting has been mixed, as some reporters didn’t seem to actually understand what the partnership is, and have appeared to have misinterpreted the association, but that was deliberate Sussex PR. Confusion by word salad. Some still think the press release says that Archewell is donating money, but I can’t see that stated as a fact in the press release. It says that the project/partnership hopes to donate $1 million in the form of $1,000 grants, but doesn’t state that Archewell has donated any money.
What VING also failed to realise is that if you associate with dodgy blackmarket dealers, you get tarred with the same brush and people will scrutinise your organisation because of it. After all, when someone befriends or works with the leader of a ‘den of thieves’, most people would be wary and skeptical, and this is in all walks of life. What this does highlight is the dangers of minors handing over sensitive personal information to an external body without any protection. Handing over your date of birth, name, email, and phone number can be dangerous information in the wrong hands.
While $1,000 is not to be sniffed at, it’s not a great deal of money in exchange for your personal details and for providing two organisations with PR. In effect, it is cheap and easy PR which can be written off as a tax deduction.
On the subject of being associated with the Sussexes, One Young World, the Charity Commission has decided to open a regulatory compliance case after multiple sources stated that the mother/daughter team paid themselves over half a million in an 18-month period during the Covid-19 lockdown period (Kate Robertson a package of over £400,000, and Ella Robertson McKay £194,543). While it might all be above board, one could question the ethics of it all.
The news of the investigation wasn’t a surprise and was expected, as the salaries seemed disproportionate during a period of trading while the world was locked down during a pandemic. OYW got publicity by using TW, but not the kind they necessarily wanted. Their advertising costs amounted to £435,000 which quite an excessive amount, which may have also include the expenses of the celebrity speakers. Again, like VING, it is an organisation that flatters the youths, who are encouraged to join a movement, as they are easy prey and easier to brainwash.