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

[Denville]

Do you think Meghan would show more restraint if she and Harry were still in Canada and not in the US?



I


I feel that moving to California turned Meghan into a looser canon as she is now more comfortable "back home" and totally unsupervised, and that may potentially increase the risk for the British Royal Family.

I dont really see that ther'es any riks for the RF, but if Meg wants to come back this politicking and saying weird things, is going to coem back to bite her

 

[RandyDrx]

[...]

Wow, if true, I'm totally shocked by this (and I'm not joking) it shows that H&M will allow their team to do anything to boost the couples PR and image. I I were the RF or Household and saw this I'd be wondering what else has been done by their "PR team".

Certainly shows once again the couple are hypocrites, saying how toxic social media can be yet their team actively using it to boost their PR and engaging with trolls.

Which is why I rolled my eyes whenever Harry and Meghan gave a speech about something. Most of the time, their actions and words simply don't match.

 

[Eskimo]

I see your point but she didn't urge that people vote a certain way and she is not inserting herself into British voting. In the United States it is very common for politicians to urge people to vote, even if they vote for the opposition. It's not sincere, of course, but it is common.

Given that the events speakers included the current Democratic nominee for Vice President, A former Democratic First Lady, a former Secretary of State in a Democratic President's administration and a former Democratic First Lady, Senator and party's most recent Presidential candidate- it can pretty much be argued that Meghan was attempting to tell voters which political party to support

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Given that the events speakers included the current Democratic nominee for Vice President, A former Democratic First Lady, a former Secretary of State in a Democratic President's administration and a former Democratic First Lady, Senator and party's most recent Presidential candidate- it can pretty much be argued that Meghan was attempting to tell voters which political party to support

I agree that her political affiliation is obvious, but it was known before she married the royal family. This effort is not overtly political - it is actually illegal to link this with a political campaign. I guess I am neutral about this because I find it hard to believe that any is going to vote due to Meghan's personal efforts. Which begs the question: do we really want someone voting who is only doing so because of a celebrity.

 

[Mbruno]

Given that the events speakers included the current Democratic nominee for Vice President, A former Democratic First Lady, a former Secretary of State in a Democratic President's administration and a former Democratic First Lady, Senator and party's most recent Presidential candidate- it can pretty much be argued that Meghan was attempting to tell voters which political party to support

I will give her that: she never endorsed Kamala Harris directly; she only spoke about the importance of women going out to vote (and said she would vote herself, setting an example). But, yes, of course the event was meant to promote the Democratic ticket and they were targeting a segment of the female population who their polls or focus groups suggest are more inclined to vote for the Democrats.



Again, let me be clear, it is perfectly OK for politicians to do that. Their job description also includes winning elections (otherwise they cannot be in office). I just think "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" may be going rogue too fast.


I don't think it is totally inconceivable that, at some point in the campaign, Meghan may openly endorse a ticket. Harry may still advise her against it, but I am not sure if she will listen to him. And, at that point, even if she is now seen as a "free agent" , it looks bad to have an endorsement from "The Duchess of Sussex", especially in a campaign in a foreign country .Meghan may be an American, but "The Duchess of Sussex" is still a British title associated with the RF and her HRH has not been revoked, even if she is not using it.



That is why I said she may be turning into a riskier, looser canon in the US. In Canada, she would still be under some supervision and subject to greater constitutional restraints (not least, perhaps by the Canadian government itself).

 

[Fem]

The most recent tweet of heir pod suggests those working for H&M (likely Sunshine Sachs) were actively engaging with such people and encouraging them to do more for H&M. That doesn't really tie in with "how bad social media can be" ethos coming from Harry recently.

A very simple bit of research would have shown the link and should have caused H&M and those advising them to think again. What worries me is it certainly shows H&M are aware of "Sussex stans" (which is also shown in the Finding Freedom book) and so engaging with them isn't putting them off, surely if they believe in the "kindness" and "social media is harmful" messages they have been delivering they'd see this was something to avoid.

Meghan and Harry definitely have the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude written all over them. But it's very clear with their (or should I say Harry's) stance on social media. It's all wrong and harmful and evil when there are negative things posted about them, but thanking and COOPERATING with a known online troll that drags the rest of BRF on Twitter is... fine? Good? Just because they're writing positive things about the Sussexes. That's the magic line that they need.

Where is logic, consistency, or even a small amount of common sense?

As far as the mentioned "Sussex stans", I just find it funny that they're preaching how Meghan should not be treated like that and that she deserves some basic respect and in the same breath tearing Catherine to pieces. But hey, the example apparently comes from the Sussexes themselves...

I don't think it is totally inconceivable that, at some point in the campaign, Meghan may openly endorse a ticket. Harry may still advise her against it, but I am not sure if she will listen to him. And, at that point, even if she is now seen as a "free agent" , it looks bad to have an endorsement from "The Duchess of Sussex", especially in a campaign in a foreign country .Meghan may be an American, but "The Duchess of Sussex" is still a British title associated with the RF and her HRH has not been revoked, even if she is not using it.

Tbh, for me it IS totally inconveivable. Even the possibility of it. Lord, how did we get to this point, this is awful.

And you're right, it'll look bad no matter what perspective. She might not be a working royal, but she is a member of the royal family. And IF that happens, the hell from british press will be absolutely deserved. Probably only for a second time, but hey, you reap what you sow.

 

[Betsypaige]

Wow, if true, I'm totally shocked by this (and I'm not joking) it shows that H&M will allow their team to do anything to boost the couples PR and image. I I were the RF or Household and saw this I'd be wondering what else has been done by their "PR team".

Certainly shows once again the couple are hypocrites, saying how toxic social media can be yet their team actively using it to boost their PR and engaging with trolls.

No, no - it's not just H and M allowing their team - they are doing it themselves; this is on everyone involved, especially H and M as the buck stops with them

 

[Mbruno]

Tbh, for me it IS totally inconveivable. Even the possibility of it. Lord, how did we get to this point, this is awful.

When she said she is definitely going to vote in the US election, it made me wonder if she ever took it seriously or understood she would have to give up being the American citizen from California to become the British princess.


I know, she is in the US now and the situation is different, but, had she stayed in the UK, what would she have done? Would she have gone to the US Embassy to file an absentee ballot, or however those things are done? Of course, I am asking a rhetorical question as she could NOT do any such thing, but was she actually told that and did she actually understand it?



It is becoming increasingly clear to me that she was completely out of sync with what being a princess in a contemporary European constitutional monarchy means/meant and I am completely puzzled by that!


Omid said in FF that she carried "binders about royal protocol", but what about anybody teaching her about the constitutional role of the RF? For those who read the Swedish forums here, Daniel Westling was said to have had a crash course from the Court on Swedish royal history, the Swedish constitution, and the role of the King and the Royal House, prior to marrying CP Victoria, and he was born and bred in Sweden! Maxima and Mary are said to have had similar training and I recall, on the day of her husband's inauguration, how Maxima commented on how that was an event of constitutional importance, explicitly mandated by the constitution, etc etc



I get that Meghan didn't marry the heir, but don't people in the British court think those details are important? Or is it all about how to wear a tiara or a sash (which BTW Meghan will probably never wear now) , or how to use the knives and forks in the right order?

 

[DuchessMia]

Given that the events speakers included the current Democratic nominee for Vice President, A former Democratic First Lady, a former Secretary of State in a Democratic President's administration and a former Democratic First Lady, Senator and party's most recent Presidential candidate- it can pretty much be argued that Meghan was attempting to tell voters which political party to support

It can’t be argued Meghan told anyone who they should vote for because she didn’t tell anyone anything of the sort. That’s like saying the Cambridges want people to be pro-Brexit because they’ve hired former Tory/Conservative politicians/aides to their staff and Foundation.

The 19th* is open to women of any political persuasion. But lines have been drawn between the parties. Partisan sides are well established. Maybe after this year, things will become less contentious between the parties and Republican women will join the 19th* in equal numbers to Dems. Because the fundamental goal of the 19th* is to center news from the female perspective. So we don’t have stories about a female politician’s likeability when questioning her fitness to lead.

 

[JessRulz]

The discussion around "shopping-gate" has been moved to the Finding Freedom thread. Let's keep all book-related discussions there.

Several empty posts have also been removed as they added nothing to the ongoing discussion.

Can we please try and keep the judgey comments on character and personality to a minimum. By this stage, every single person who reads any Sussex thread knows how every single poster feels about Harry and Meghan - thus, there is no need to continually repeat your opinion on them. It's tiring.

 

[Eskimo]

I will give her that: she never endorsed Kamala Harris directly; she only spoke about the importance of women going out to vote (and said she would vote herself, setting an example). But, yes, of course the event was meant to promote the Democratic ticket and they were targeting a segment of the female population who their polls or focus groups suggest are more inclined to vote for the Democrats.



Again, let me be clear, it is perfectly OK for politicians to do that. Their job description also includes winning elections (otherwise they cannot be in office). I just think "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" may be going rogue too fast.


I don't think it is totally inconceivable that, at some point in the campaign, Meghan may openly endorse a ticket. Harry may still advise her against it, but I am not sure if she will listen to him. And, at that point, even if she is now seen as a "free agent" , it looks bad to have an endorsement from "The Duchess of Sussex", especially in a campaign in a foreign country .Meghan may be an American, but "The Duchess of Sussex" is still a British title associated with the RF and her HRH has not been revoked, even if she is not using it.



That is why I said she may be turning into a riskier, looser canon in the US. In Canada, she would still be under some supervision and subject to greater constitutional restraints (not least, perhaps by the Canadian government itself).

That will be a nightmare. You know the Orange one will use that as an example of “foreign interference”, creating a massive headache for the BRF and the UK political establishment. IF this happens, I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry is stripped of his titles, styles and place in the line of succession by act of Parliament.

 

[Mbruno]

That will be a nightmare. You know the Orange one will use that as an example of “foreign interference”, creating a massive headache for the BRF and the UK political establishment. IF this happens, I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry is stripped of his titles, styles and place in the line of succession by act of Parliament.

Agreed. Let's hope it doesn't get to that. Probably it won't, but the way she is progressing in her political speech is cause for concern.

 

[duchessrachel]

I will give her that: she never endorsed Kamala Harris directly; she only spoke about the importance of women going out to vote (and said she would vote herself, setting an example). But, yes, of course the event was meant to promote the Democratic ticket and they were targeting a segment of the female population who their polls or focus groups suggest are more inclined to vote for the Democrats.



Again, let me be clear, it is perfectly OK for politicians to do that. Their job description also includes winning elections (otherwise they cannot be in office). I just think "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" may be going rogue too fast.


I don't think it is totally inconceivable that, at some point in the campaign, Meghan may openly endorse a ticket. Harry may still advise her against it, but I am not sure if she will listen to him. And, at that point, even if she is now seen as a "free agent" , it looks bad to have an endorsement from "The Duchess of Sussex", especially in a campaign in a foreign country .Meghan may be an American, but "The Duchess of Sussex" is still a British title associated with the RF and her HRH has not been revoked, even if she is not using it.



That is why I said she may be turning into a riskier, looser canon in the US. In Canada, she would still be under some supervision and subject to greater constitutional restraints (not least, perhaps by the Canadian government itself).

If that were to happen, I think the RF should officially strip them of their "Sussex" titles and their HRH titles.
Edit: After I posted this I just saw that Eskimo had basically said the same thing.

 

[Mbruno]

[...]

Who would have imagined that they would have a more lavish lifestyle in the US than the rather austere life they lived as HRHs at the Kensington Palace apartment or Frogmore Cottage?

 

[Denville]

[...]

Who would have imagined that they would have a more lavish lifestyle in the US than the rather austere life they lived as HRHs at the Kensington Palace apartment or Frogmore Cottage?

Easy enough to imagine. I think that the relative lack of that sort of thing, was one of the factors which Meghan was taken aback by...I dont think she liked either a small place at KP or a modest country house in Windsor even when it was done up.... and now she has what she wanted, a big luxurious house with glitzy trappings in a rich part of America. I dont think Meg "gets" that the RF's image is "comfortable enough but a little shabby" - because it deflects social envy...

 

[Denville]

I .



That is why I said she may be turning into a riskier, looser canon in the US. In Canada, she would still be under some supervision and subject to greater constitutional restraints (not least, perhaps by the Canadian government itself).

Hmm, do you think if they had stayed in Canada, they would have listened to teh Can govt, even if advised that "talking too openly about politics" was not on.? I don't know. I suspect that they would have had had to be warned very firmly before they would comply. It MAY be one of the reasons why they left - that they were warned that if they stayed, they had to go through the normal processes to get permission to live and work there, that the free security was coming to an end and that if they went on living there they could do certain things, but that involvement in politics was one that they couldn't do.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I see your point but she didn't urge that people vote a certain way and she is not inserting herself into British voting. In the United States it is very common for politicians to urge people to vote, even if they vote for the opposition. It's not sincere, of course, but it is common.


The articles I have read indicate that the fundraiser was "linked" to the anti-Cambridge account. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect them to be familiar with all the posters. I can't believe that Harry and Meghan would knowingly praise someone who posted vile insults about Kate and William. They would have to assume that the phone call would prompt some investigation. I'll withhold judgment until there is more information.

There is evidence, multiple screenshots, this Dani woman and the Sussex squad in general; which FYI I spiked up and warned about in these forums months ago!, attacked the Cambridge’s, attacked an innocent black woman who was bullied by Jessica, used racial slurs and general disgusting language.
She has been interviewed by Omid, been liked by him.
If the couple or people did not track her twitter activities before contacting her they have done the couple a disservice!
However more so, this has been going on for over a year, if they are social media reading comments there is no way they could have avoided coming across it, all they had to do was go into her account and read through her tweets!

 

[Pranter]

When it comes to the Meghan and The 19th video (which I watched twice yesterday) I was looking for any sort of hint about partisanship. I did like to see that at least a couple times it was said this was BI-partisan and that they were looking to make sure women's voices were heard outside of the major cities.

I am a conservative Independent voter ..I live in a swing state. Long have ppl in the midwest felt mostly ignored (male and female) by various groups because they don't vote liberal/progressive. IF the 19th will really stand behind that idea, that ALL political voices will be heard, then I will support their movement. I'm following them now and will be watching to see how they proceed.

Regardless of how Meghan came to be involved I'm glad she did because I'd never heard of the group until she was featured as someone who would be talking with them.

You have a duty to vote if you can. I'm glad to see anyone encourage this ..and I appreciate it when the person isn't trying to tell you vote for X (and yes it happens).



LaRae

 

[tommy100]

I think this is another example of differences between British and American attitudes and culture. In the UK "get out the vote" is not really a thing and the RF stay out of politics and voting in anyway so to those in the UK it seems odd to even hear a member of the RF talking about voting. Indeed, in the UK the RF often "go into hiding" during elections and their public diaries are scaled down and avoid any issues that are remotely on the political agenda e.g. visiting hospitals as the NHS is always an election issue.

 

[Pranter]

I think if the Sussexes were still working members of the family you'd not be hearing anything from Meghan. They are now on their own and in the U.S. It would be odd for her not to speak up given her previous involvement with causes/organizations. I don't expect Harry to say anything about it ...in fact it would be rather surprising if he did. Now if he were, at some point, to become a citizen and give up all the other then I'd expect him to be out voting and encouraging others.

Voting is a big deal here, unfortunately many ppl are apathetic and don't bother. It's a shame they don't when you look at what we had to go thru as a nation to get that right for everyone. When you see ppl in other countries literally dying trying to go vote ...it's shameful that more don't here IMO. So even when ppl with opposite political views encourage voting I support them.


LaRae

 

[Mirabel]

Voting is a big deal here, unfortunately many ppl are apathetic and don't bother. It's a shame they don't when you look at what we had to go thru as a nation to get that right for everyone. When you see ppl in other countries literally dying trying to go vote ...it's shameful that more don't here IMO. So even when ppl with opposite political views encourage voting I support them.


LaRae

I know.
I sometimes think voting should be made compulsory...but then, we also have the freedom to be apathetic.
Still, if people don't vote, then they shouldn't complain about the outcome.

 

[Denville]

I think if the Sussexes were still working members of the family you'd not be hearing anything from Meghan. They are now on their own and in the U.S. It would be odd for her not to speak up given her previous involvement with causes/organizations. I don't expect Harry to say anything about it ...in fact it would be rather surprising if he did. Now if he were, at some point, to become a citizen and give up all the other then I'd expect him to be out voting and encouraging others.

Voting is a big deal here, unfortunately many ppl are apathetic and don't bother. It's a shame they don't when you look at what we had to go thru as a nation to get that right for everyone. When you see ppl in other countries literally dying trying to go vote ...it's shameful that more don't here IMO. So even when ppl with opposite political views encourage voting I support them.


LaRae

If they were still working royals, in the UK I HOPE Meg would keep quiet.... but the more one sees of her the more unsure one becomes... She might be FIRMLY advised that during a UK Election the RF HAS to be extremely cautious...and One hopes she would fall in with that rule...
But if she were still working in the UK now and the US election was coming up, I am not so sure that she might not feel the itch to speak as she's done.. and justify it by saying that she's a US citizen?

 

[Pranter]

I know.
I sometimes think voting should be made compulsory...but then, we also have the freedom to be apathetic.
Still, if people don't vote, then they shouldn't complain about the outcome.

Yes I agree, don't vote then don't complain....and I would not want it to be compulsory because yeah you have the right to abstain too.


LaRae

 

[Pranter]

If they were still working royals, in the UK I HOPE Meg would keep quiet.... but the more one sees of her the more unsure one becomes... She might be FIRMLY advised that during a UK Election the RF HAS to be extremely cautious...and One hopes she would fall in with that rule...
But if she were still working in the UK now and the US election was coming up, I am not so sure that she might not feel the itch to speak as she's done.. and justify it by saying that she's a US citizen?

She's NOT in the U.K. and there's no reason to think anytime in the near future they will be moving back to take up residency there. [....]



LaRae

 

[acdc1]

I have no problem with encouraging others to get out and vote especially when certain groups in this country are doing their best to suppress the vote.

HOWEVER, I do wonder how appropriate it is for her, even as an American citizen, to be the one doing it. I recognize that she is an American citizen living in the United States so it’s her constitutional right to be able to vote, but although she is no longer a working royal she still is technically a member of the royal family, and it’s VERY clear that members of the royal family don’t throw their support behind particular candidates, and even though she hasn’t explicitly done that it’s very clear as to which side this group aligns with. Additionally, I also wonder about the appropriateness of using her British titles in this situation, and I wonder if the powers that be will put a stop to it. I get that “Meghan Markle” or “Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor” doesn’t pack the same punch as “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex,” but it just feels a little strange to me to have someone using the titles of a member of the British royal family to be telling Americans to vote.

 

[Somebody]

Yes I agree, don't vote then don't complain....and I would not want it to be compulsory because yeah you have the right to abstain too.


LaRae

I agree IF everybody would be given the opportunity to vote. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in the US, so to those that want to vote but need to jump through impossible hoops to make it happen, you can't say 'you didn't vote, so you shouldn't complain' (but I assume you were talking about those who would be perfectly able to but decided not to).

In countries where it is obligatory to vote, you still have the option of the 'blanc(o) vote'. So, you did your duty as a citizen and decided not to endorse any party or candidate. My main concern would be that people that are completely uninformed might go and vote 'at random' because they have to - which is slightly less likely when it's not an obligation (although theoretically voting uninformed is fully allowed).

 

[Somebody]

If that were to happen, I think the RF should officially strip them of their "Sussex" titles and their HRH titles.
Edit: After I posted this I just saw that Eskimo had basically said the same thing.

The Royal Family cannot strip them off their Sussex title; only parliament can do so (check the titles-thread for more information if you're interested). They could probably require them not to use it - just like they are not allowed to use HRH at the moment but still have it.

The HRH can be stripped but I guess they are hesitant to do so because I am sure the question would come up why Andrew's HRH hasn't been stripped in that case.

 

[Somebody]

She's NOT in the U.K. and there's no reason to think anytime in the near future they will be moving back to take up residency there. [....]

LaRae

I agree that it seems rather unlikely that they will follow the plan laid out earlier in spending considerable amounts of time a year in 'North America' and considerable amounts of time in the UK. It seems much more likely that they are fully US-based from now on with some family visits to the UK, probably visiting a few charities as well during those visits.

I hope that they will be able to visit sooner rather than later - it's been 9 months since Archie spend time with any of his close family members on his father's side... And I'm not sure they spend that much time in the first 6 months of his life either, so in practice they are almost complete strangers to each other.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes I agree, don't vote then don't complain....and I would not want it to be compulsory because yeah you have the right to abstain too.


LaRae

I am 100 % against voting being compulsory. I know some democracies (Australia, Belgium) do it, but I associate compulsory voting mostly with dictatorships, "people's republics" and alike (yes, they do have elections, contrary to what most people would imagine).



With respect to Meghan, she shouldn't vote in the UK if she had stayed there and become a UK citizen. But also I personally don't think she should vote in the US elections either as long as she is still a UK princess and the Duchess of Sussex, but that is obviously controversial.


I just wish her constitutional status were clarified. She is effectively out of the RF's institutional framework (i.e. unsupervised) and living in another country in which she also happens to be a citizen. On the other hand, nothing has really changed legally in terms of her being an HRH and the wife of a royal duke. That is confusing and unhelpful.

 

[tommy100]

True, maybe it would have been better if when talking about voting which leads the conversation to politics in many minds, she used "Meghan Markle" rather than having "Duchess of Sussex" anywhere near it. Semantics maybe, but better safe than sorry.