Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 3: February - May 2019

[Dman]

I’m not saying they all the royal reporters and correspondents and journalists did this, but they can see this has been an major campaign based on false info or just plainly made up stuff and very little has been done to place facts out there and push back.

From what I’ve seen so far - Meghan, has been left out there to hang and dry in the press for too long and now things have snowballed into an uncontrollable situation. Unprecedented.

 

[Rena M.]

I think we need to understand that racism is no longer just blatantly stated

I think women are experts on misogyny, Jews are experts on anti semitism, gays are experts on homophobia and POC are experts on racism. Thus we must listen to people of colour when they complain about covert racism in media coverage of Meghan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/16/white-fragility-racism-interview-robin-diangelo

“The problem with white people,” she says, “is that they just don’t listen. In my experience, day in and day out, most white people are absolutely not receptive to finding out their impact on other people. There is a refusal to know or see, or to listen or hear, or to validate.”

''This creates a climate where the suggestion or accusation of racism causes more outrage among white people than the racism itself. ''

“We have to stop thinking about racism simply as someone who says the N-word”

 

[ACO]

I’m not saying they all the royal reporters and correspondents and journalists did this, but they can see this has been an major campaign based on false info or just plainly made up stuff and very little has been done to place facts out there and push back.

From what I’ve seen so far - Meghan, has been left out there to hang and dry in the press for too long and now things have snowballed into an uncontrollable situation. Unprecedented.

I can agree there. I think watching the Sky News coverage and listening to Rhiannon speak on this kind of sums it up. She has written some silly stories about Meghan that has been used via the trolls. She even showed how an innocent video she posted is being used by some to claim Meghan is faking a pregnancy.

I think most expected some people would have issue with the idea of someone with Meghan's background being in the royal family. No one is naive. What I think they never expected was it going to this level and I can admit not even I saw these extremes.

It is just getting worse and it doesn't help that because it is so bad that even legit criticism is now seem as attacks because people are soooo defensive. But that is what it has come to. Everyday there is a new "Leave Meghan Alone" kind of article, podcast, blog, etc. from all over the globe. It is overwhelming because people are in shock at the nastiness.

Now there is a baby involved and I feel people are trying their best to just bring attention before something bad potentially occurs.

 

[MARG]

A survey by a reputable polling company in the US done to ascertain where the Gen X, Millennials, etc. Got their news found the majority got their news and political coverage from YouTube and not the traditional media outlets.

Check out the royal coverage there. It's an eye-opener. Vids are regularly taken down and reposted with a new date. One particular group always qualifies who Meghan is (becsuse we have such short memory span) as "the former D-list actoress". The ugly trolling is being repeated over and over. Many take it as real by sheer dint of repetition. Most Royal Forum fans know it is bogus because they get what to us, is basic facts, consistently wrong.

The three million cost of renovation sounds dodgy when they keep showing the Gatehouse or Frogmore House when discussing it. Meghan's supposed jewellery tantrum was recycled yesterday along with her punishment and banishment to Windsor etc. ad nauseam.

I don't know that much can be done there because it is not a designated news feed and very lightly moderated.

 

[Zonk]

What I find frustrating about the Sussex coverage is that it lacks the basic tenets of journalism. No one does any any research, no one confirms and/or names sources, no one tries to separate truth from rumor and innuendo. We have seen it before but never to this magnitude IMO. But we live in a world of instant gratification so the facts take a back seat IMO. Its all about the clicks. Any idea of truth in reporting has taken a back seat.

The Daily Fail wonders out aloud if Meghan wrote Charles's sympathy note regarding the burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral and all of sudden you have 3K nasty comments about Meghan when it turns out that Charles has always written with a hint of Old English/Americanism. They finally somewhat corrected the article, but will it make a difference to the Meghan haters? I doubt it.

Take for example the TLC special on the royal baby. Why was there a need to interview Samantha? She hasn't had a relationship with Meghan in five to ten years (depends on which Samantha story you are going with) and yet she knows that Meghan will definitely have a nanny and gets jealous easily. The only reason I can think she was included was the Wow factor. The Samantha bit was heavily reported on much more than Katie Nichols, who while I think she tends to get personal information wrong, she sure has heck knows more about how a royal baby will be raised than Samantha.

The British tabloids take everything that the Markle as the written word and don't question them at all. How can Samantha legitimately question Meghan's relationship or lack of one with their father when Samantha has no relationship with her family....her mother, her children, her brother or her nephews. How can Thomas Jr., talk about wanting to meet his niece or nephew when he doesn't have a relationship with his kids or his nieces and/or nephews (Samantha's kids). How can Thomas Sr., bemoan the fact that he won't have a relationship with Meghan's child when he apparently has no relationship with his other grandchildren? Its hypocrisy at its fullest and the British tabloids don't call them on it because they want to keep the gravy train (the clickers) clicking away.

Is it because Meghan is black, an actress and American? I want to think that is not the case. I remember how Kate was treated and let's face it...royal coverage has changed a lot in five to ten years. So would she had the same issues because she was a commoner? I guess we will never know.

 

[Dman]

What I find frustrating about the Sussex coverage is that it lacks the basic tenets of journalism. No one does any any research, no one confirms and/or names sources, no one tries to separate truth from rumor and innuendo. We have seen it before but never to this magnitude IMO. But we live in a world of instant gratification so the facts take a back seat IMO. Its all about the clicks. Any idea of truth in reporting has taken a back seat.

The Daily Fail wonders out aloud if Meghan wrote Charles's sympathy note regarding the burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral and all of sudden you have 3K nasty comments about Meghan when it turns out that Charles has always written with a hint of Old English/Americanism. They finally somewhat corrected the article, but will it make a difference to the Meghan haters? I doubt it.

Take for example the TLC special on the royal baby. Why was there a need to interview Samantha? She hasn't had a relationship with Meghan in five to ten years (depends on which Samantha story you are going with) and yet she knows that Meghan will definitely have a nanny and gets jealous easily. The only reason I can think she was included was the Wow factor. The Samantha bit was heavily reported on much more than Katie Nichols, who while I think she tends to get personal information wrong, she sure has heck knows more about how a royal baby will be raised than Samantha.

The British tabloids take everything that the Markle as the written word and don't question them at all. How can Samantha legitimately question Meghan's relationship or lack of one with their father when Samantha has no relationship with her family....her mother, her children, her brother or her nephews. How can Thomas Jr., talk about wanting to meet his niece or nephew when he doesn't have a relationship with his kids or his nieces and/or nephews (Samantha's kids). How can Thomas Sr., bemoan the fact that he won't have a relationship with Meghan's child when he apparently has no relationship with his other grandchildren? Its hypocrisy at its fullest and the British tabloids don't call them on it because they want to keep the gravy train (the clickers) clicking away.

Is it because Meghan is black, an actress and American? I want to think that is not the case. I remember how Kate was treated and let's face it...royal coverage has changed a lot in five to ten years. So would she had the same issues because she was a commoner? I guess we will never know.

Zonk, I think you managed to address this issue correctly and asked the necessary questions that pretty much everyone is asking and wondering about. I happen to believe a lot of this coming down to her race, her being an actor and being American. I also think another problem is the lack of any royal reporters, royal correspondents and royal journalists of color who can report from a different perspective and who can relate to Meghan.

Something very unprecedented is going here and it’s just snowballing into something that smells and taste very bad. I think a lot of folks out there saw this coming pretty early on.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I, personally, see a hundred times more anti American culture than racism when I read the negative comments about Meghan in DM. for example. I hear many British voices bemoaning the American traits, language and lack of British traditions. If Meghan were a white American I believe the comments would be exactly the same. I also read negative comments about her feminism more often than I see a complaint swayed by racism. Negative comments about Meghan's family are almost always pointed at her white relatives
Mostly the negative comments are in the least intellectual, least trustworthy news outlets that also publish comments by the Markles etc. I hope Meghan loses no sleep over the nasty mutterings of nasty people.

 

[Osipi]

One thing we've learned about Meghan is that she's stated a few times that she doesn't listen to the "noise" and most likely never reads what is printed about her in comment sections. I'd bet my last buffalo wing that she is at least informed that it is happening. She's a woman that has enough in her life that is positive and she aims to make not only a happy family but promote changes for the good in her world around her.

As far as the concerns here at TRF that Marg has pointed out, there is one big difference that I've noticed when it comes to linking from anywhere. Sometimes you have a link posted that is meant to be a source or a backup of an opinion or a statement that one has made. Then you have the posts where the links are the statement themselves. Someone finds a negative or demeaning or "click bait" headline and brings it here to show us all how horrible it is "out there". For me, it just spreads the negativity even more. If I wanted to know all there is to know about the negativity surrounding The Duchess of Sussex, I have the ability to find it at my fingertips. I choose not to.

Thanks Marg for an excellent post. ?

 

[muriel]

I, personally, see a hundred times more anti American culture than racism when I read the negative comments about Meghan in DM. for example. I hear many British voices bemoaning the American traits, language and lack of British traditions. If Meghan were a white American I believe the comments would be exactly the same. I also read negative comments about her feminism more often than I see a complaint swayed by racism. Negative comments about Meghan's family are almost always pointed at her white relatives
Mostly the negative comments are in the least intellectual, least trustworthy news outlets that also publish comments by the Markles etc. I hope Meghan loses no sleep over the nasty mutterings of nasty people.

I tend to agree with you, I think the criticism and negativity does not come from racism (though for some, that may well be an issue), but perhaps from a combination of some of these factors:

a) a somewhat "celebrity" approach to doing things, e.g. the high profile baby shower in the US, socialising with the Clooney's and Beckhams etc
b) a degree of anti-Americanism amongst the British public at large, especially in a Trump era
c) perhaps some people in the UK being uncomfortable with an actress now being a member of the RF
d) Meghan's ongoing preference for very expensive international designer wear as opposed to patronsing British brands when conducting engagements on behalf of the BRF.

Each person judges for themselves the relative importance of these or other "crimes", but my sense is that these probably matter more than the colour of her skin per se.

 

[Ista]

There certainly is an ugly undercurrent of racism in some of the coverage of Meghan, although I have observed that the largest amount of it comes from social media platforms; if you don't follow those, you see a lot less of it. I tend to agree that the bulk of the negativity towards Meghan comes from the fact that she is older, American and an actress. Her high profile celebrity friends aren't helping with the perception of her as not being "one of us," and the plethora of very high end, foreign, designer clothing just adds to that. The few times that I've read the comment section of the print media, the vast majority of the negative commentary runs along those lines, with the usual anti-royal verbiage thrown in for good measure.

 

[Dman]

Meghan’s celebrity - Although members of the royal family have been associated with celebrities for decades and some members of the family count some celebrities as their personal friends - there’s seems to be an attitude that because, Meghan, is a former actress from a successful tv show, she’s the one that must make the biggest effort to distant herself from any form of her celebrity world as a senior royal. Btw, Meghan, is not the only actress in the family.

Meghan the American - You can tell there’s some anti-American sentiment going on. Some feel like, Meghan, is too foreign to the British culture and the British way of doing things. Which really don’t make much sense because Americans and the British have more in common with each other than differences. Also the Monarchy benefits greatly from American interest. Her marriage is also a sign of our close bond.

Meghan’s race - It’s impossible for Meghan’s race to not factor in on these issues. That’s the biggest elephant in the room. Some would like to ignore it because it’s a tough issue to tackle. There are some in the British media and online that find it very hard to accept, Meghan’s, race. A biracial woman is now a senior member of the British royal family. Thats just a fact. Let’s not beat around the bush about it. Her racial heritage is an issue for some folks and, in plain sight, it’s leading to some people to having a problem with her.

Every member of the royal family go through periods of heavy criticism and none of that’s going to change. There’s good and healthy criticism and there’s bad and unnecessary criticism. I think what, Meghan, is experiencing is something on a different scale all together. It’s not pleasant seeing what’s happening, but I hope as the years go by....some of that harsh attitude will soften and, Meghan’s, contribution to the Monarchy will be appreciated.

I’m hopeful.

 

[Pranter]

I really do not understand the issue with her being American. Americans have been marrying into the Aristos of The U.K. for over a century...along with other European countries. We have all sorts of common ties even if there are cultural differences in how some things are approached. Meghan has not put a foot wrong when it comes to her job since before she married Harry. So it's not like she's been out there making gaffes and using the wrong fork.

I've been talking to and dealing with Brits for almost 30 years in real life and online..and I personally have never experienced this anti-American thing. Yes differences can come up about how we view things like crime/guns etc but that's not anti-American...just a cultural difference.




LaRae

 

[muriel]

There certainly is an ugly undercurrent of racism in some of the coverage of Meghan, although I have observed that the largest amount of it comes from social media platforms; if you don't follow those, you see a lot less of it.

I agree, a lot of the racist nonsense is on social media rather than the Press per se.

I tend to agree that the bulk of the negativity towards Meghan comes from the fact that she is older, American and an actress. Her high profile celebrity friends aren't helping with the perception of her as not being "one of us," and the plethora of very high end, foreign, designer clothing just adds to that.

Spot on!

 

[muriel]

Also the Monarchy benefits greatly from American interest. Her marriage is also a sign of our close bond.

Really? How might the monarchy benefit from American interest?

Every member of the royal family go through periods of heavy criticism and none of that’s going to change.

That I agree with, they just tend to work their work through these issues, and one would hope Meghan will as well.

 

[Rena M.]

Is it because Meghan is black, an actress and American? I want to think that is not the case.

All POC call it racism and we, white people, only have to listen and to validate.

 

[DeeT]

I tend to agree with you, I think the criticism and negativity does not come from racism (though for some, that may well be an issue), but perhaps from a combination of some of these factors:

a) a somewhat "celebrity" approach to doing things, e.g. the high profile baby shower in the US, socialising with the Clooney's and Beckhams etc
b) a degree of anti-Americanism amongst the British public at large, especially in a Trump era
c) perhaps some people in the UK being uncomfortable with an actress now being a member of the RF
d) Meghan's ongoing preference for very expensive international designer wear as opposed to patronsing British brands when conducting engagements on behalf of the BRF.

Each person judges for themselves the relative importance of these or other "crimes", but my sense is that these probably matter more than the colour of her skin per se.

The Crown Jewels worn by the BRF, the Royal Art Collection etc are largely internationally sourced. The 6th inline’s wife wearing some international designs, seems more in tradition with the foundation of BRF & what it stands on.

A few high profile people supporting truth about the Duchess is good considering the amount of hate that has been directed at her, fuelled by some unprofessional & unethical journalists taking part in copy/paste journalism.

Members of BRF socialized with celebrities long before Meghan joined the family. Yet she’s singled out. After all, it’s the reigning Monarch that’s patron of the Royal Variety Charity.

 

[ACO]

I see plenty of dog whistling coverage of Meghan. I mean a recent example was how Meghan was “vile” and utterly berated while Kate was a “goddess” and praised in the descriptions of their off the shoulder outfits a mere weeks apart.

What was the difference other than the obvious? Sadly many people of color can spot that stuff because we deal with it every day. If it’s not obvious then people don’t think it’s happening at all when this kind of racism is the most dangerous.

So I’m glad more public figures are calling it out. It needs to be!

That said, I do agree with the fact that Meghan is American, an actress, older, and outspoken also makes people uncomfortable. So add on top her racial background and we get this magnitude of nastiness.

 

[Ista]

The Crown Jewels worn by the BRF, the Royal Art Collection etc are largely internationally sourced. The 6th inline’s wife wearing some international designs, seems more in tradition with the foundation of BRF & what it stands on.

A few high profile people supporting truth about the Duchess is good considering the amount of hate that has been directed at her, fuelled by some unprofessional & unethical journalists taking part in copy/paste journalism.

Members of BRF socialized with celebrities long before Meghan joined the family. Yet she’s singled out. After all, it’s the reigning Monarch that’s patron of the Royal Variety Charity.

There is a lot of negativity associated with the acquisition of some of the gemstones in some of the Crown Jewels, and the imperialism implied with it, so I don't think it's a good idea to apply that lens to Meghan. It's a real stretch in any case.

And the association of the BRF with celebrities doesn't give Meghan much cover, either, when you consider the hits to reputation that have followed from royal friendships with wild-partying celebs, or with celebrities who had, to put it very politely, dubious reputations. That's part, I think, of why Meghan's celebrity friends have been viewed askance: the BRF's friendships with celebrities has not always ended well, or reflected well on the particular royal. It's a slippery slope.

 

[alvinking]

There is a lot of negativity associated with the acquisition of some of the gemstones in some of the Crown Jewels, and the imperialism implied with it, so I don't think it's a good idea to apply that lens to Meghan. It's a real stretch in any case.

And the association of the BRF with celebrities doesn't give Meghan much cover, either, when you consider the hits to reputation that have followed from royal friendships with wild-partying celebs, or with celebrities who had, to put it very politely, dubious reputations. That's part, I think, of why Meghan's celebrity friends have been viewed askance: the BRF's friendships with celebrities has not always ended well, or reflected well on the particular royal. It's a slippery slope.

Like it said in a privious post back in February and I quote myself
So now there is a litmus test for her friends?...

I don't remember hearing the same venom at Eugenie's wedding. Seated in the Quire were Robin Williams, Demi Moore, Naomi Campbell to name a few. Was that Hollywood too?

On a side note, the same celebrities that have been viewed askance, are the same ones royals rely on for their fundraising activities for their charities. In these cases their money doesn't sink does it? You don't believe it, go ask the PoW about celebrities financial contribution to the Prince's Trust

 

[Denville]

Like it said in a privious post back in February and I quote myself
So now there is a litmus test for her friends?...

I don't remember hearing the same venom at Eugenie's wedding. Seated in the Quire were Robin Williams, Demi Moore, Naomi Campbell to name a few. Was that Hollywood too?

On a side note, the same celebrities that have been viewed askance, are the same ones royals rely on for their fundraising activities for their charities. In these cases their money doesn't sink does it? You don't believe it, go ask the PoW about celebrities financial contribution to the Prince's Trust

Hmm I saw slightly tart comments in a paper about the "glittery" people at Eugs wedding..

 

[alvinking]

Hmm I saw slightly tart comments in a paper about the "glittery" people at Eugs wedding..

Key word here is slightly, and it doesn't compare to the venom Meghan has been subject to for now 3 years in papers days in and out as far as this subject is concerned

 

[Ista]

Like it said in a privious post back in February and I quote myself
So now there is a litmus test for her friends?...

I don't remember hearing the same venom at Eugenie's wedding. Seated in the Quire were Robin Williams, Demi Moore, Naomi Campbell to name a few. Was that Hollywood too?

On a side note, the same celebrities that have been viewed askance, are the same ones royals rely on for their fundraising activities for their charities. In these cases their money doesn't sink does it? You don't believe it, go ask the PoW about celebrities financial contribution to the Prince's Trust

It would be a neat trick for Robin Williams to have been at Eugenie's wedding, but I take your point.

There's always been commentary about celebrity friendships with the royals, it's not unique to Meghan, and it frequently has not been positive commentary. I'm not sure where you are getting that anyone is applying any kind of litmus test for Harry and Meghan's friends, but the discussion was about how their celebrity friendships affect the perception of Meghan. Of course, celebrities have frequently been associated with the royals' pet causes, and will continue to be.

 

[Denville]

Key word here is slightly, and it doesn't compare to the venom Meghan has been subject to for now 3 years in papers days in and out as far as this subject is concerned

Far as I can see, it is the commentators on the papers (ie internet comment sections) that have the nasty comments. and it seems to be divided between britisih and American commenters...
People just aren't that interested in Eugenie.. but even so she gets crticisim.

 

[Pranter]

Just recently we saw William talking about how at the beginning of the H.T. campaign he couldn't get any celeb to join up and support it, get involved etc. So he, the future King, actively sought out to involve celebs....his father recently brought in two entertainers to one of his causes....the next king!

Still waiting on the outrage.....


LaRae

 

[Rena M.]

That said, I do agree with the fact that Meghan is American, an actress, older, and outspoken also makes people uncomfortable. So add on top her racial background and we get this magnitude of nastiness.

I have a strong impression covert racists can't stomach the fact that Meghan, a mixed race woman is confident, outspoken, highly educated, rich and successful in her own right, has powerful and famous friends and is a citizen of a more powerful country. On top of that she looks young, beautiful and dares to wear expensive clothes. All things reserved for whites only

 

[Ista]

Just recently we saw William talking about how at the beginning of the H.T. campaign he couldn't get any celeb to join up and support it, get involved etc. So he, the future King, actively sought out to involve celebs....his father recently brought in two entertainers to one of his causes....the next king!

Still waiting on the outrage.....


LaRae

Why would there be outrage? Celebrities are very useful in drawing support for pet causes. You're conflating two different issues: celebrities as close (and very outspoken) personal friends--baby showers, interviews in magazines about the royal, etc., and celebrities as acquaintances and spokespeople for a cause. One is more likely to draw negative commentary than the other. As we have seen.

 

[muriel]

The Crown Jewels worn by the BRF, the Royal Art Collection etc are largely internationally sourced. The 6th inline’s wife wearing some international designs, seems more in tradition with the foundation of BRF & what it stands on.

I think it is quite clear on how some of the spoils of the empire continue to live on in the jewel and art collections of the BRF. But that is history, and I think Meghan's fashion choices cannot be viewed through quite the same lens.

A few high profile people supporting truth about the Duchess is good considering the amount of hate that has been directed at her, fuelled by some unprofessional & unethical journalists taking part in copy/paste journalism.

You raise a very interesting point. I think the friends of the Duchess speaking to the media on her behalf, without the consent of the Palace, is exactly the sort of thing that is really not appreciated by the BRF, and some of the UK based royal watchers.

After all, it’s the reigning Monarch that’s patron of the Royal Variety Charity.

And monarchs since George V have supported that charity.

 

[alvinking]

Just recently we saw William talking about how at the beginning of the H.T. campaign he couldn't get any celeb to join up and support it, get involved etc. So he, the future King, actively sought out to involve celebs....his father recently brought in two entertainers to one of his causes....the next king!

Still waiting on the outrage.....


LaRae

American/celebrity/even divorced are covers, talking points, the issue is somewhere else and we all know it (race; perception of what feminism is and what it implies in their mind, sjw, et al, everything that is projected onto her)

 

[DeeT]

There is a lot of negativity associated with the acquisition of some of the gemstones in some of the Crown Jewels, and the imperialism implied with it, so I don't think it's a good idea to apply that lens to Meghan. It's a real stretch in any case.

And the association of the BRF with celebrities doesn't give Meghan much cover, either, when you consider the hits to reputation that have followed from royal friendships with wild-partying celebs, or with celebrities who had, to put it very politely, dubious reputations. That's part, I think, of why Meghan's celebrity friends have been viewed askance: the BRF's friendships with celebrities has not always ended well, or reflected well on the particular royal. It's a slippery slope.

I’m British, when my family lived in England, we travelled to other countries & purchased items. I now live in Canada & support locally & internationally. If international support wasn’t important, members of the BRF wouldn’t do tours to other countries and Her Majesty wouldn’t receive international guests outside of the Commonwealth.

The only reason, Meghan’s friends received pushback is because certain people who are full of hatred are upset their negative narrative was challenged. Several journalists complained that 5 of Meghan’s friends spoke out anonymously to support her. Some of those same journalists recently promoted a newspaper article quoting anonymous journalists deriding Meghan, hypocrisy at its finest. When reviewing problems in the history of BRF, celebrities weren’t the issue.

 

[muriel]

Like it said in a privious post back in February and I quote myself
So now there is a litmus test for her friends?...

I don't remember hearing the same venom at Eugenie's wedding. Seated in the Quire were Robin Williams, Demi Moore, Naomi Campbell to name a few. Was that Hollywood too?

Actualy, the Yorks received quite a lot of criticism at the time of Eugenie and Jack's wedding for the high celebrity count. That said, Eugenie is not a working member of the BRF, so she is pretty free to do as she pleases. She is not supported by public funds, and does not work for the Firm.

The only reason, Meghan’s friends received pushback is because certain people who are full of hatred are upset their negative narrative was challenged. Several journalists complained that 5 of Meghan’s friends spoke out anonymously to support her. Some of those same journalists recently promoted a newspaper article quoting anonymous journalists deriding Meghan, hypocrisy at its finest. When reviewing problems in the history of BRF, celebrities weren’t the issue.

Not quite, IMO. The criticism of Meghan tacitly supporting her friends speaking on her behalf to the media stems from the parallel to the last member of the BRF who employed such tactics. That ended badly, and one would hope Meghan learns from the recent history.

I’m British, when my family lived in England, we travelled to other countries & purchased items. I now live in Canada & support locally & internationally. If international support wasn’t important, members of the BRF wouldn’t do tours to other countries and Her Majesty wouldn’t receive international guests outside of the Commonwealth.

With respect, you and I have a lot more freedom in our sartorial choices as we do not represent a nation in our work. Our choices are personal. Ladies of the BRF largely wear British, to support local businesses.

As regards overseas tours by the BRF are typically carried out on behalf of HM's Government, and more specifically, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. They are usually designed to highlight and draw attention to trade, cultural, social and other linkages. Not sure I quite understand the point you might be making wrt to these tours and Meghan's penchant for overseas designer wear.

Just recently we saw William talking about how at the beginning of the H.T. campaign he couldn't get any celeb to join up and support it, get involved etc. So he, the future King, actively sought out to involve celebs....his father recently brought in two entertainers to one of his causes....the next king!

Still waiting on the outrage.....


LaRae

That is correct. I think William, Catherine, Harry and the HT team have done a fantastic job of bringing mental health into the broader conversation in the UK, and using the power of celebrities to widen that narrative. How is that a problem?