General News about the Sussex Family, Part Three: August-September 2020

[Alisa]

No. Members of the royal family represent & support the crown.

To think of them as “influencers” is to fundamentally misunderstand their role.

The idea that British people take any great note of what members of the royal family have to say is absurd. Laughable to be honest. Most are uninterested if not downright apathetic. Anyone who lives in the UK knows that.

They are influential whether you like it not. Were that not the case, various members of the royal family would not use their social media platforms to appeal to their causes. The numbers show they have been quite successful too!

In that respect royals are no different from actors, singers, or other celebrities.

 

[Durham]

Most people in Britain pay little or no attention to the royal family.

I don't know why some people outside Britain think they do. Maybe the media gives a false impression of the real level of interest.

They're just there in the background - white noise as Heavs accurately describes it.

 

[Osipi]

I'm American and its odd that I know that all the Queen's speeches are prepared for her except for her Christmas message. That Christmas message, which is personal from the Queen is perhaps the one speech where most people pay attention to what she says even if its only tradition that the speech is tuned into on Christmas Day.

I have to be honest and state that I'm not a speech listener type of gal. Its in one ear and out the other no matter who is giving the speech. Being hearing impaired gives me a good excuse and in a way, its a blessing.

 

[poppy7]

They are influential whether you like it not. Were that not the case, various members of the royal family would not use their social media platforms to appeal to their causes. The numbers show they have been quite successful too!

In that respect royals are no different from actors, singers, or other celebrities.

They draw attention to the causes they champion. That is it. And look pretty and have children and get married and wear crowns.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Several reporters are complaining that Meghan said something to the effect of "people need to be linked not ranked" - implying we should all be equal not above each other. She said this (something like that) while she was using her Duchess title.

 

[Osipi]

With Meghan's own words, she's actually putting it out there that having the British title of "duchess" doesn't really count for much of anything at all. To be honest, I don't think many Americans would even think that a "duchess" is "higher" "better" or even "more respectable" than Mrs. or Ms.

I've always kind of seen the titles and styles such as "prince", "queen" or "duke" as kind of a job description as one would use the term "doctor" or "professor" or "judge". It denotes actually what they do rather than single them out to be humans that are better than others.

Meghan is doing a good job to reinforce exactly how I think.

 

[Somebody]

Their job description (including on the papers for their Sussex Royal charity) was 'Prince(ss) of the UK'. That's no longer their job; and 'Duchess of Sussex' isn't a job imho, so, what is their profession?

 

[Hallo girl]

With Meghan's own words, she's actually putting it out there that having the British title of "duchess" doesn't really count for much of anything at all. To be honest, I don't think many Americans would even think that a "duchess" is "higher" "better" or even "more respectable" than Mrs. or Ms.

I've always kind of seen the titles and styles such as "prince", "queen" or "duke" as kind of a job description as one would use the term "doctor" or "professor" or "judge". It denotes actually what they do rather than single them out to be humans that are better than others.

Meghan is doing a good job to reinforce exactly how I think.

She likes using the title and as we know wanted to use "The ranking" to promote their foundation or charity or whatever it was. Once again a touch of hypocrisy from this couple but this is nothing new.

 

[ACO]

Several reporters are complaining that Meghan said something to the effect of "people need to be linked not ranked" - implying we should all be equal not above each other. She said this (something like that) while she was using her Duchess title.

Meghan didn’t say this. This is a phrase Gloria has coined. She mentioned it to Meghan who thanked her for the jewelry that had the phrase on it. She agreed that people should be seen more as equals and not look down on people. I think most would agree to that concept.

 

[Jacknch]

Speculative posts and subsequent responses have been removed.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8671981/JAN-MOIR-Meghan-speak-guide-woke-folk.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...rry-morphing-John-Yoko-royal-family-exit.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...ccused-hypocrisy-linked-not-ranked-quote.html

Most of my colleagues at work say they don't have a clue what she is talking about??

 

[QueenMathilde]

She's practically implied she's voting for Biden and it's obvious lol. But she should steer away from talking politics at all with using her title.

She's praised Kamala Harris. She's pretty much backed a candidate.

 

[Denville]

As a citizen of the UK, how do you feel about them continuing in their positions in the Commonwealth Trust, especially since they are not even living in a Commonwealth country? Personally, I don't think they should be able to keep them. I wonder if this will be discussed at the yearly review.

Im not a citizen but my personal feeling is that they should not be on the Commonwealth Trust.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps the English audiance would listen, if the Royals had any opinion to offer... How do you know, that this would not be the case?

The Queen at least commands surely some authority!

They would not be fulfilling their roles if they "offered opinions". There is a very fine line between having some ideas and trying to use one's positon to do good, as P Charles does, and venturing into politics.. and Charles has been felt to stray over that line.. So no, it would not be correct procedure or admired if royals were to go around routinely offering opinions..
and Its also true that most people in the UK do not take much notice of the RF, they have admirers, there are people who are royalists and people who are fans of some particular royal but overall they dont arouse nearly as much interest as some people think they do.

 

[Osipi]

They would not be fulfilling their roles if they "offered opinions". There is a very fine line between having some ideas and trying to use one's positon to do good, as P Charles does, and venturing into politics.. and Charles has been felt to stray over that line.. So no, it would not be correct procedure or admired if royals were to go around routinely offering opinions..
and Its also true that most people in the UK do not take much notice of the RF, they have admirers, there are people who are royalists and people who are fans of some particular royal but overall they dont arouse nearly as much interest as some people think they do.

This sums it up nicely, I think. The British Royal Family are representatives of the Crown in a constitutional monarchy and the Crown represents each and every person in its realm. To offer opinions and to be political would mean that the Crown becomes partial to some of the people and excludes the other and then it loses its meaning and its purpose and stops being something important to each and every human soul that is part of what is known as the United Kingdom. Notice the word "united". Its the Crown that holds meaning as the British Royal Family passes through generations with births, marriages and deaths. The British Royal Family upholds the traditions of ages past that the Crown represents. Its both anachronistic and relevant at the same time.

On the lighter side, I'm reminded of a man that, four years ago around this time, wrote to HM, The Queen with a request to please take us back. Now, mind you, I see the Queen of the UK as being the most top notch, iconic example of what diplomacy is and what dedication she has to the Crown and *why* she has such dedication to the Crown but I can't help but think that the UK has it right. An apolitical Head of State with the utmost skills in diplomacy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-of-the-us-because-presidential-a6697661.html

As much as Harry and Meghan have "found freedom" in their new lives, I do think and honestly believe that Meghan, using "The Duchess of Sussex" title when blatantly appearing to be "woke" and "political" is stepping into a hornet's nest. She may still be part and parcel of the "royal" family but to me, she's degrading exactly what happens when someone "of note" goes rogue. It doesn't end well. As time passes, she's sure to be looked at by the UK (if not already), the USA and the history books very comparable to "The Duchess of Windsor". One thing in Wallis' favor though, she never attempted to make her mark on the world stage and then again, neither did David. They lived their hedonistic lifestyle to the hilt out of mind and out of sight.

This period of the pandemic has shown me a lot of things about how Harry and Meghan are starting their new lives. Of course, things probably didn't go according to plan and adjustments had to be made but now that they're in California and "woke", it seems like its Charles and Diana all over again with Diana taking center stage and Charles as her accoutrement. Harry getting to state that he's a "feminist", to me, sounds like he's been coached to "chime" in when needed.

I don't know really where this couple is headed but if I was on their ship, I'd be looking for a life jacket right about now.

BTW: I'm in agreement with the guy that wrote the letter to the Queen. Its an ungodly mess over here and we *need* someone good to sort us all out.

 

[ACO]

She's praised Kamala Harris. She's pretty much backed a candidate.

She never said her name. What she praised was the fact that representation was happening throughout election process and pointed out how that’s a good thing. Again, I think most would agree that representation matters in life.

Then again many show they don’t...

[.....]

 

[Alisa]

This sums it up nicely, I think. The British Royal Family are representatives of the Crown in a constitutional monarchy and the Crown represents each and every person in its realm. To offer opinions and to be political would mean that the Crown becomes partial to some of the people and excludes the other and then it loses its meaning and its purpose and stops being something important to each and every human soul that is part of what is known as the United Kingdom. Notice the word "united". Its the Crown that holds meaning as the British Royal Family passes through generations with births, marriages and deaths. The British Royal Family upholds the traditions of ages past that the Crown represents. Its both anachronistic and relevant at the same time.

On the lighter side, I'm reminded of a man that, four years ago around this time, wrote to HM, The Queen with a request to please take us back. Now, mind you, I see the Queen of the UK as being the most top notch, iconic example of what diplomacy is and what dedication she has to the Crown and *why* she has such dedication to the Crown but I can't help but think that the UK has it right. An apolitical Head of State with the utmost skills in diplomacy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-of-the-us-because-presidential-a6697661.html

As much as Harry and Meghan have "found freedom" in their new lives, I do think and honestly believe that Meghan, using "The Duchess of Sussex" title when blatantly appearing to be "woke" and "political" is stepping into a hornet's nest. She may still be part and parcel of the "royal" family but to me, she's degrading exactly what happens when someone "of note" goes rogue. It doesn't end well. As time passes, she's sure to be looked at by the UK (if not already), the USA and the history books very comparable to "The Duchess of Windsor". One thing in Wallis' favor though, she never attempted to make her mark on the world stage and then again, neither did David. They lived their hedonistic lifestyle to the hilt out of mind and out of sight.

This period of the pandemic has shown me a lot of things about how Harry and Meghan are starting their new lives. Of course, things probably didn't go according to plan and adjustments had to be made but now that they're in California and "woke", it seems like its Charles and Diana all over again with Diana taking center stage and Charles as her accoutrement. Harry getting to state that he's a "feminist", to me, sounds like he's been coached to "chime" in when needed.

I don't know really where this couple is headed but if I was on their ship, I'd be looking for a life jacket right about now.

BTW: I'm in agreement with the guy that wrote the letter to the Queen. Its an ungodly mess over here and we *need* someone good to sort us all out. [emoji3]

I believe Meghan and her life experiences cannot afford to have her stand by to look pretty and keep her opinions to herself.

From a young age she showed herself to be an activist. She herself has experienced discrimination and racism and as such she cannot idly stand by and have no opinions or views on issues and movements such as BLM and racism in the USA. On a side note, I remain terribly disappointed with the lack of response from RFs concerning the BLM and related issues-but that's another topic for discussion.
Representation matters to minorities- it just does. I recall a college friend of mine being addicted to the series The Office simply because Mindy Kaling was on it and for her it was very big deal to see an Indian woman represented on mainstream American TV.

 

[ACO]

Video of Harry and Meghan with Baby 2 Baby

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEcCurkp2f5/?igshid=1si9iqc4wb0z5

 

[Alison H]

BTW: I'm in agreement with the guy that wrote the letter to the Queen. Its an ungodly mess over here and we *need* someone good to sort us all out.

We love America . Come and join us, the Queen can become your head of state, and we won't make you pay taxes on tea !

The Royal Family do have to be very careful about political issues. I'm sure that they've all got plenty that they'd like to say about particular things, and it's probably quite frustrating that they can't do that, but they have to be seen to be above politics. I think we all know exactly which way Meghan will be voting, because she made her views clear before she and Harry got married, which was fair enough because she was a private citizen at the time, but it's awkward whilst they're in this sort of halfway house position.

 

[RandyDrx]

I believe Meghan and her life experiences cannot afford to have her stand by to look pretty and keep her opinions to herself.

From a young age she showed herself to be an activist. She herself has experienced discrimination and racism and as such she cannot idly stand by and have no opinions or views on issues and movements such as BLM and racism in the USA. On a side note, I remain terribly disappointed with the lack of response from RFs concerning the BLM and related issues-but that's another topic for discussion.
Representation matters to minorities- it just does. I recall a college friend of mine being addicted to the series The Office simply because Mindy Kaling was on it and for her it was very big deal to see an Indian woman represented on mainstream American TV.

If that's the case, then why did she chose to marry into an institution that is basically the opposite to everything she stands for?


I think Meghan realised that no one cares about "Meghan the actress" but they care about "Meghan the royal wife". Otherwise, why is she always clinging to the "Duchess of Sussex" title?


Let's be honest here, Meghan gained A LOT with this marriage. Status, fame, exposure, platform, etc. Basically everything most actresses would kill for.

 

[Sun Lion]

The video of the Duchess of Sussex and Ms Steinem chatting clearly showed post and rail fencing to the left of Meghan. Even the horse jumps were showing. Harry and Meghan's new home does not have these facilities.

Some media reported the backyard chat gave a glimpse of the Sussex home, but the actual location was “Hilltop Farm” in nearby Carpinteria, at 6060 Casitas Pass Rd.

Google Earth shows the building the ladies were sitting in front of, and the large tea tree, jumps ring etc.

This is the house close to the golf sand-trap and sitting on it's own.

There are photos of the other "farm-stay" cottages on the property on the internet, but those are grouped together and near the tennis court.

Nice and private for the filmimg, an ideal location.

 

[poppy7]

If that's the case, then why did she chose to marry into an institution that is basically the opposite to everything she stands for?


I think Meghan realised that no one cares about "Meghan the actress" but they care about "Meghan the royal wife". Otherwise, why is she always clinging to the "Duchess of Sussex" title?


Let's be honest here, Meghan gained A LOT with this marriage. Status, fame, exposure, platform, etc. Basically everything most actresses would kill for.

And didn't even have to go the mile. Watched a programme about Princess Grace. Basically did the same thing. Married for eternal fame. She saw it out though. But the programme did say they thought Grace never loved Rainier. I think Meghan does have warmer feelings for Harry.

 

[Kataryn]

Their titles are absolutely pointless in the USA too. I think they should be removed as they were given to them on the premise that they would be working British royals which they no longer want to be.

Harry got his title because he married, just like the other princes got theirs, too. Even divorce does not mean you have to give up your title. You need not be a working Royal to have one, being a Royal is enough. So why should his title be taken only because he lives now in the US? Her Majesty lived in Malta as a young wife and kept her title as well.

 

[Duchess_Watcher]

She married into the institution thinking she'd change it, that is why.

 

[Kataryn]

You hit the nail on the head. No one wanted to know about or cared who Meghan Markle was. They love and care for Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. That is why I believe that she never intended to stay in the UK doing boring royal duties-- she got the international platform she was looking for and set sail.

For the people who meet the Royals these duties are not boring, so they shouldn't be for the Royals. I see two ways to live as Royals: either be a working Royal (if you are needed) or live your own life. The first didn't work out with Meghan and Harry, now they try the second option. We'll see how this goes. [.....]


But what will she do afterwards? We just have to sit and wait.
But for the idea that anyone cared for Meghan at all (apart from her personal friends): it doesn't really matter who she is and why she does or does not do things. Not for us, not for celebrities. She is "in" at the moment, so her voice is "heard" because that means money for someone.

But she as a person? Matters to Harry, her son, her mother, some friends.

 

[Kataryn]

If that's the case, then why did she chose to marry into an institution that is basically the opposite to everything she stands for?


I think Meghan realised that no one cares about "Meghan the actress" but they care about "Meghan the royal wife". Otherwise, why is she always clinging to the "Duchess of Sussex" title?


Let's be honest here, Meghan gained A LOT with this marriage. Status, fame, exposure, platform, etc. Basically everything most actresses would kill for.

Yes, she did. Now she has to keep the man and behave in a way Americans will find fitting for a "Royal duchess". That's a heavy enough burden, don't you think?

 

[Sun Lion]

A photo of the beautiful home of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in "Santa Barbara" magazine,
prior to their purchase of it.

Double-page photo - three pages in.

https://issuu.com/santabarbaramag/docs/spring16digitaleditionrev2


I won't be suprised to see Meghan on the cover on this publication one day.

She would be following in the footsteps of Catherine Zeta Jones, Kevin Costner, former supermodel Elaine Irwin, Portia de Rossi, Michael Douglas, Annette Bening, etc, etc, etc.

All with ties to the area the Royal Couple have now settled into and happy to do exclusives for this very glossy lifestyle magazine.

Prince Harry's friend Nacho Figueras has done several glossy photo-spreads across different issues of "Santa Barbara Polo" magazine. (A different magazine, there are many different publications covering everything - pools, property, food, winter activities, summer activities.)

Also Oprah Winfrey with Rob Lowe on "Santa Barbara Independent" magazine - so no suprise for me if the Duchess sees this as a good move.

 

[RandyDrx]

Yes, she did. Now she has to keep the man and behave in a way Americans will find fitting for a "Royal duchess". That's a heavy enough burden, don't you think?

And what would that be?

 

[Osipi]

And what would that be?

My sentiments exactly. The average American could care less what a "duchess" is. This was shown in years past with the penchant to call Diana, Princess of Wales (or The Princess of Wales) "Princess Diana". No matter how many times Diana corrected people on this, it never took.

 

[AC21091968]

According to The Sun (I do take it as a pinch of salt), a new book, Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour under Corbyn, revealed that Harry and Meghan sent a personal letter of thanks to Jeremy Corbyn and his wife, Laura Alvarez. Both couples met at the Commonwealth Service. Jeremy and Laura allegedly gave them 'a book of verse by the 17th-century Mexican poet Juana Inés de la Cruz, “a nun whose willingness to attack the hypocrisies of the colonial classes had made her a target for establishment hate.”'.

Link to the Sun article: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12478271/jeremy-corbyn-meghan-markle-prince-harry-book-poetry-megxit/

Like I said earlier, I do think this is just a publicity piece for the book Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire, due to release in 3rd September. But naturally, other opinion writers from political publications have picked it up.

The Spectator, not surprisingly very negative towards Harry and Meghan. It is behind a paywall, you can only read the first paragraph. This is a right-leaning, mostly pro-monarchy magazine: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/when-corbyn-met-meghan

Spiked, where the writer Tom Slater (also Deputy Editor) is a republican (anti-monarchy), centrist and a free-speech activist: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/08/24/of-course-corbyn-sided-with-meghan/

Since the conversation is private, I don't think this is "muddling with politics", but more like emotional support, similar to Diana and Tony Blair relationship, based on Tony Blair's autobiography.