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

[acdc1]

This situation has just really hammered home the fact to me that she was woefully underprepared for her role as a member of the BRF, despite claims of carrying around binders full of information about protocol.

 

[tommy100]

carrying around binders and understanding their content are two different things

 

[Eskimo]

I have no problem with Meghan Markle voting— she has that right. What I have a problem with is Meghan supporting a particular candidate while calling herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It wrongly implies that the candidate is being supported by the larger BRF

 

[acdc1]

I have no problem with Meghan Markle voting— she has that right. What I have a problem with is Meghan supporting a particular candidate while calling herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It wrongly implies that the candidate is being supported by the larger BRF

I have the exact same opinion. I think it’s fine if Meghan Markle the private citizen votes but not the public figure the Duchess of Sussex throwing her weight behind a particular candidate Is there a way that they could limit her using the Duchess of Sussex title if supporting a particular candidate? I know that only Parliament can strip titles but it does make you wonder if that would have been the correct move.

 

[Kataryn]

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.

The Uk didn't want her as a UK-citzien directly. They could have done like other monarchies and given the citizenship to her on marriage. Even ask her to get rid of her US-American citizenship. Then it would be understood that there is no right to vote for her as a member of the RF.
As it is, it was the choice of the British government to force her to stay US American. As such, she has the right to a political opinion, to talk about that and to go voting in the presidential election.
So it is completely okay to be named as a British Royal duchess but to be an US citizen with the right (and the duty, IMHO) to vote.

 

[Kataryn]

I have no problem with Meghan Markle voting— she has that right. What I have a problem with is Meghan supporting a particular candidate while calling herself Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It wrongly implies that the candidate is being supported by the larger BRF

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

 

[muriel]

The Uk didn't want her as a UK-citzien directly. They could have done like other monarchies and given the citizenship to her on marriage. Even ask her to get rid of her US-American citizenship. Then it would be understood that there is no right to vote for her as a member of the RF.
As it is, it was the choice of the British government to force her to stay US American. As such, she has the right to a political opinion, to talk about that and to go voting in the presidential election.
So it is completely okay to be named as a British Royal duchess but to be an US citizen with the right (and the duty, IMHO) to vote.

The BRF decided it was right for her to follow the law of the land, and no special favours be accorded to her in relation to her becoming a British subject. I am glad that was indeed the case, as she demonstrated her lack of commitment to Queen and country 18 months after the wedding.

As things stand, she is free to engage in the politics of her homeland to the extent her "voice" is relevant there.

 

[muriel]

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

Funnily, in a society based on laws established in a parliamentary democracy, you cannot decide the ride rough shod over existing legislation and make somebody a British subject overnight. If she was marrying the future monarch, that may well have been considered, as was the case for Prince Philip in the 1940s. As the wife of the 6th in-line to the throne, there was no need.

 

[Helen.CH]

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

to say it with greta" how dare you" suggest she'll go for a job in us politics,
I fear the two are weird enough to think about it
there'll be more surprises with the sussex couple that's for sure.
maybe there idea of being victims goes that far to provoke the british parliament take their titles away, who knows. would sound like charles spencer said at diana's funeral: she needed no royal title to......
?

 

[muriel]

to say it with greta" how dare you" suggest she'll go for a job in us politics,
I fear the two are weird enough to think about it
there'll be more surprises with the sussex couple that's for sure.
maybe there idea of being victims goes that far to provoke the british parliament take their titles away, who knows. would sound like charles spencer said at diana's funeral: she needed no royal title to......
?

I think it would be great if she ran for a seat in the Senate. It will be a genuine way for her to use her "voice", and work for society at large. She in articulate, rumoured to be quite intelligent, hardworking, so why not.

The only question is whether she will be able to put herself up for the scrutiny that comes with a campaign to get elected. Many questions will be asked, and it will really for her to decide if she is willing to be answerable to the people of the state she is hoping to represent.

 

[Eskimo]

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

The US Constitution forbids her using a foreign title of nobility to run for public office so NO she would not be able to call herself The Duchess of Sussex while running for office.

 

[tommy100]

I think if it got that far action would be taken to remove or limit her use of the title.

 

[Durham]

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.

Thank you for this clear summary.

We're all on a steep learning curve here trying to understand each others cultures. It's really helpful to appreciate that for monarchists a respect for tradition & convention is observed.

These apply to both "working" & "non working" members of the royal family. When it comes to how they conduct themselves these are distinctions without a difference.

 

[Durham]

I think it would be great if she ran for a seat in the Senate. It will be a genuine way for her to use her "voice", and work for society at large. She in articulate, rumoured to be quite intelligent, hardworking, so why not.

Because it would establish a precedent that anyone with royal status can use that privilege to further their own political career.

Let's be honest here. Is this support of yours conditional on the fact that you share her beliefs? What if you didn't, would you still think it a good idea?

 

[Durham]

So it is completely okay to be named as a British Royal duchess but to be an US citizen with the right (and the duty, IMHO) to vote.

To vote as a US citizen in the USA of course but not to become publicly involved. That must be done as a private citizen not as a royal duchess surely.

 

[Helen.CH]

I think it would be great if she ran for a seat in the Senate. It will be a genuine way for her to use her "voice", and work for society at large. She in articulate, rumoured to be quite intelligent, hardworking, so why not.

The only question is whether she will be able to put herself up for the scrutiny that comes with a campaign to get elected. Many questions will be asked, and it will really for her to decide if she is willing to be answerable to the people of the state she is hoping to represent.

at least she would "have" a people. to me it's still a mystery how they started in canada, visiting charities but as far as I know they did not do it in the US.
i mean peiple from europe go to india or africa to start or support charities and the US has serious problems, too, but would feel rather strange if those two concentrated on us charities as if they waited for an ex-actress and her british prince to take over, but who knows? at the moment they seem to rather want to speak at big events, which still feels a bit strange to me, too TBH. beyond the fact they have hardly much to offer, what do they expect or what would they answer when asked what's your profession? but I am not much into Us culture, so maybe rhe US is waiting for Meghan to be saved;-)

 

[Durham]

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

I don't want to be pedantic but it's not her name. I understand that in Germany ancient aristocratic titles have been incorporated into surnames but this is alien to British usage.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[muriel]

This situation has just really hammered home the fact to me that she was woefully underprepared for her role as a member of the BRF, despite claims of carrying around binders full of information about protocol.

I do not think it was about being underprepared, it was all about attitude and perseverance. These are roles that you take years growing into, so there was never any hurry.

 

[Denville]

The British government should have thought about that and taken measures when she was to marry in to the RF. Now Meghan Sussex or The duchess of Sussex is her name, her real life name! Of course she has a right to use that. She could even become a senator for California if enough people voted for her and be "The duchess of Sussex", though I think she would chose Meghan Sussex then. But her choice, not ours.

No, its her title...and she would not have it if she wasn't married to Harry. They have been forbidden from using their HRH in business dealings...and as the US does not have titles of nobility, she certainly could not use it in American politics.

 

[tommy100]

[....]


And there is the problem, people may assume that the need to get Trump out of office is why she is partaking in a "get out the vote" drive. It would possibly be different it she were sharing a platform with just as many high profile Republicans as Democrats, she didn't. Again even then i would say not using "Duchess of Sussex" is a prerequisite.
I can't stress enough how a political the RF are expected to be seen here in the UK. The Queen may hate trump, Phil may have a picture of him on a dart board in the kitchen at Wood Farm and Camilla may have scrubbed her hand vigorously after shaking his but that is all hidden deep down and never shown. In a recent article it was pointed out while Anne found the social media reaction to her character in the crown "amusing" she was less impressed with those suggesting she somehow snubbed Trump at a BP reception - because one is breaking the rules the RF live by.

 

[muriel]

Because it would establish a precedent that anyone with royal status can use that privilege to further their own political career.

Not quite. One would assume the good people of the USA would be able to choose their candidate based on their perception of her ability to serve the people. The royal connection only gets her extra visibility at the outset, the rest is up to her.

Let's be honest here. Is this support of yours conditional on the fact that you share her beliefs? What if you didn't, would you still think it a good idea?

I tend not to voice political opinions on TRF, as it is against the rules, and more importantly, can sidetrack the conversation very quickly.

However, the reason I support her running for public office in the US, if that is indeed what she wants to do, is it will allow her legitimately obtain a public position. So far, her public profile is based largely on her relationship with Harry. In football parlance, that is a "WAG". She has been vocal about using her "voice", and running and getting elected to public office in the US will allow her to not just use her voice, but also achieve something for the greater good that she seems to be keen to pursue.

 

[Betsypaige]

My post seems to have been deleted - so I’ll just say that, considering how important this election is, I have no issue with Meghan encouraging people to vote.

 

[Durham]

Not quite. One would assume the good people of the USA would be able to choose their candidate based on their perception of her ability to serve the people. The royal connection only gets her extra visibility at the outset, the rest is up to her.



I tend not to voice political opinions on TRF, as it is against the rules, and more importantly, can sidetrack the conversation very quickly.

However, the reason I support her running for public office in the US, if that is indeed what she wants to do, is it will allow her legitimately obtain a public position. So far, her public profile is based largely on her relationship with Harry. In football parlance, that is a "WAG". She has been vocal about using her "voice", and running and getting elected to public office in the US will allow her to not just use her voice, but also achieve something for the greater good that she seems to be keen to pursue.

I would say the part I've bolded is a very big advantage over other candidates. And deeply unfair. Getting a leg up in politics through connection with an apolitical royal family strikes me as pretty unethical. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would see it that way.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning though.

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

I completely agree with you. As Meghan, an American citizen, she has the right. However, as the Duchess of Sussex, a member of the BRF, she is treading in dangerous territory. If she is going to use her title, she needs to keep her mouth shut about any politics. If she wants to be political, she should not use her title. If anyone in the Republican party in the United States complains loudly enough about it, I would hope that she would be told FIRMLY by the BRF that she (and Harry) have to choose between having titles or being politically active.

 

[Durham]

I would hope that she would be told FIRMLY by the BRF that she (and Harry) have to choose between having titles or being politically active.

I think this is the heart of the matter isn't it? I'm glad you've confirmed as an American (as have increasing numbers of others on here now) how awkward this situation is.

I started posting about the Sussexes & politics a while back. Their involvement seems to be accelerating unfortunately. It may be that they have been emboldened by a lack of clear boundaries from the monarchy. Hopefully this is being thought about because the present situation is deeply unsatisfactory & has the potential to cause real harm.

 

[Helen.CH]

I think this is the heart of the matter isn't it? I'm glad you've confirmed as an American (as have increasing numbers of others on here) how awkward this situation is.

I started posting about the Sussexes & politics a while back. Their involvement seems to be accelerating unfortunately. It may be that they have been emboldened by a lack of clear boundaries from the monarchy. Hopefully this is being thought about because the present situation is deeply unsatisfactory & has the potential to cause real harm.

But would bring them back in the headlines and I think attention is the most important for Meghan&Harry

 

[Kataryn]

The US Constitution forbids her using a foreign title of nobility to run for public office so NO she would not be able to call herself The Duchess of Sussex while running for office.

Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor then... people would still call her "duchess", I'm sure.

 

[Kataryn]

I don't want to be pedantic but it's not her name. I understand that in Germany ancient aristocratic titles have been incorporated into surnames but this is alien to British usage.

I hope that makes sense.

I know peers and peeresses just use their christian name and their title in their short form of their name, like Michael Ancram, when Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram and later The Marquess of Lothian was a active politician in the Commons, before he moved into the Lords.


So she would be Meghan Sussex, right? Or without her title, she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Somebody]

I know peers and peeresses just use their christian name and their title in their short form of their name, like Michael Ancram, when Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram and later The Marquess of Lothian was a active politician in the Commons, before he moved into the Lords.


So she would be Meghan Sussex, right? Or without her title, she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

No, the USA does NOT allow people to use titles when running for public office. 'Meghan Sussex' would be using her title. She would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (assuming she officially changed her name - as she did previously).

By now she's been:
Meghan Markle
Meghan Engelson
Meghan Markle
HRH Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex - OR: Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (when no title can be used)

 

[Durham]

I know peers and peeresses just use their christian name and their title in their short form of their name, like Michael Ancram, when Michael Kerr, Earl of Ancram and later The Marquess of Lothian was a active politician in the Commons, before he moved into the Lords.


So she would be Meghan Sussex, right? Or without her title, she would be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

Yes you're correct.

However this is informal & strictly speaking incorrect. I'm not aware of any royal duke/duchess doing this.