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

[Curryong]

Harry was born a Prince as the son of the POW and will remain one till he dies. So if he is not allowed to use his dukedom (extremely unlikely) then he would revert to bring Prince Harry (or Henry) of GB.

Which would you prefer? A dukedom which many in the US, the Sussexes' new home, don't really know about, or an address recognised throughout the world, Prince? (And Meghan would not in that case be a Duchess but PRINCESS Harry or Henry.)

Better or worse, lol? But, as I've said, won't happen because the Dukedom is not going to be pulled. Too difficult and no reason for it to be done. Let's not forget, King Edward VIII abdicated the British throne in 1936, but remained HRH Prince Edward and was given a Dukedom by the new King. What he did, and what HRH Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, has been mired in for years, is 10,000 worse in tainting the BRF and the Throne than anything Harry and Meghan have ever done.

 

[Osipi]

Just to add my own two cents here about Meghan's title. I agree that Parliament has so many other pressing things to worry about rather than to strip *anyone* of their peerage at this time. If they did take the time to debate, vote and decide to remove the Sussex titles, it most likely would have to happen *at the same time* that Andrew lost his. It sets a precedence that any *peer* that acts badly or invokes public ire should have their titles revoked. Opens up a whole, big, ugly can of worms. Not going to happen in my opinion.

Being an American and am more interested in the British monarchy and its people and its traditions than I am in American politics, if I think its kind of a no brainer to realize that a British title attached to an American citizen exercising her political rights to vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as influence goes. She can speak out as much as she wants to about anything she wants to as is her right as an American. I just know that no matter what she says, its not going to influence me in any way whether she has a British title because her husband's a prince or a Duke or Bozo the Clown or she is going on 80 years old with a long career in American politics.

Then again I'm not a sheeple and to be honest, a title or wealth or status never did much to impress me. What a person does with their lives is what matters to me. Its why I believe the Queen is iconic. Its why I believe Charles is a sincere humanitarian. Actions always speak louder than words for me.

Ooops.. a board is loose on my soapbox here. Time to go fix it.

 

[Pranter]

They've not done anything to warrant Parliament removing their Duke/Duchess status. People can not like them all they want but from what I have read here and elsewhere it'd have to be something pretty serious for that to happen.



LaRae

 

[Missjersey]

They've not done anything to warrant Parliament removing their Duke/Duchess status. People can not like them all they want but from what I have read here and elsewhere it'd have to be something pretty serious for that to happen.



LaRae

I would say you’re right Pranter it’s just to me this gal isn’t sincere...

 

[Mbruno]

Harry was born a Prince as the son of the POW and will remain one till he dies. So if he is not allowed to use his dukedom (extremely unlikely) then he would revert to bring Prince Harry (or Henry) of GB.

Which would you prefer? A dukedom which many in the US, the Sussexes' new home, don't really know about, or an address recognised throughout the world, Prince? (And Meghan would not in that case be a Duchess but PRINCESS Harry or Henry.)

Better or worse, lol? But, as I've said, won't happen because the Dukedom is not going to be pulled. Too difficult.

Judging by the DM's comments section, I guess many Americans would prefer her to go just by Meghan Markle or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.



And while one may have a title, one does not have to use it. It is a matter of choice. The US in particular does not publicly recognize any foreign title that may be held by a US citizen (they can't be used in US documents AFAIK). When a foreign dignitary , let's say the Queen or a foreign President for that matter, comes to the US on an official visit, he/she will be addressed by the title he/she holds in his/her respective country as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, but that is not the case of Harry or Meghan who are not in the US in any official capacity or under some kind of diplomatic visa, at least not that I am aware of.



I will say it again: it is bizarre that she is confusing citizen Meghan Markle of California with the Duchess of Sussex, which is a foreign royal title that she is not forbidden from using privately in the US, but is inappropriate to be used for political activism in the middle of a domestic election.


At least that is my opinion.

 

[Pranter]

I haven't seen anything supporting that she is doing this for fame or that she's not sincere , her past behavior/actions don't indicate such either.

They let David keep his HRH and titles even after it came out about his collusion with the Nazis....I'd say it's not likely anything will happen with their Duke/Duchess.



LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

I get annoyed when some famous person gets up there and espouses to me that I should get out and vote. As if they *need* to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I find it offensive. Now, a teacher that is teaching civics and government of the US to their students that spends the time to teach kids just what our right is in being able to vote in elections concerning the way our government is run is excellent. "Joey Dreamboat Starlight" who is renown for smashing guitars and drunken brawls and destroying hotel rooms on tours standing up there telling me I need to go out and vote makes me sick.

To vote or not to vote is my right and my decision to make. I know my right. i don't need a star or a rock idol or a married in duchess to tell me what I should do or shouldn't do. None of their freakin' business.

Meghan doing this just really, really rubs me the wrong way. Sorry folks for the rant. ?

Why do celebrities speak about voting? The same reason celebrities talk about covid and wearing masks. The same reason that they talk about their charity causes as well. Because people listen.


How many teens actually listen to their teachers? Sadly not that many. And many people who are out of school still don't vote.


So yeah if its going to take some actress, or some professional football player or some rock star who people idolize, to tell people to vote then fine lets throw what ever celebrity at it that is willing to do it, to do it. The point is to get people to get out and vote.

What do you think is more likely to get someone who has no interest in politics to get out and vote? A civics lesson on television? Or some hot celebrity talking about how they rock the vote? 9 times out of 10 it will be the second one who most of those non-voters wont turn the channel in 1.2 seconds from.


Its sad that you think its your 'right not to vote'. There are plenty of people in the country who don't have the right to vote. You have the priviledge to vote so vote. If you choose not to, fine. But to complain that someone is trying to convince people to vote???


What I was always told: if you don't get out and vote, don't ever complain about politics or how the country is going. Because you chose to not care how the election went. Maybe your vote would not have made a difference, but you still made the choice that politics doesn't matter to you. So either grin and bear what ever political manure storm you live in and not vote, or vote and have the right to an opinion.

 

[Missjersey]

I haven't seen anything supporting that she is doing this for fame or that she's not sincere , her past behavior/actions don't indicate such either.

They let David keep his HRH and titles even after it came out about his collusion with the Nazis....I'd say it's not likely anything will happen with their Duke/Duchess.



LaRae

I didn’t mean just the vote stuff Pranter regarding sincere.
Sorry to harp about it but Lion King Premier, to me, said there was discontent with just the title and that she wants fame..

 

[Mbruno]

Its sad that you think its your 'right not to vote'. There are plenty of people in the country who don't have the right to vote. You have the priviledge to vote so vote.

Nonetheless, she does have the right NOT to vote, not least as a statement that she does not feel represented by any of the candidates/parties or what they stand for. Or because she simply doesn't agree with the system (she could be an anarchist for example), or plainly doesn't care.

In some countries that have compulsory voting, there is actually a rather high percentage of spoiled or blank ballots. Those are people who would rather normally not vote and are forced to do it, and have no other way to voice their protest but to cast an invalid ballot. In fact it is as much a political statement as voting for candidate X, Y or Z.

 

[duchessrachel]

I’m sure that parliament has better things to do than to strip their titles... but is their anyway that they could amend the removal of the HRH in public duties to include not allowing them to use their titles at all even though they still have them?

That would be a good idea.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I was starting to like them again with delivering food during corona but they annoy me when they wag their rich fingers at me and tell me what to do. I think it's what annoys everyone about celebrities.

 

[duchessrachel]

Judging by the DM's comments section, I guess many Americans would prefer her to go just by Meghan Markle or Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.



And while one may have a title, one does not have to use it. It is a matter of choice. The US in particular does not publicly recognize any foreign title that may be held by a US citizen (they can't be used in US documents AFAIK). When a foreign dignitary , let's say the Queen or a foreign President for that matter, comes to the US on an official visit, he/she will be addressed by the title he/she holds in his/her respective country as a matter of diplomatic courtesy, but that is not the case of Harry or Meghan who are not in the US in any official capacity or under some kind of diplomatic visa, at least not that I am aware of.



I will say it again: it is bizarre that she is confusing citizen Meghan Markle of California with the Duchess of Sussex, which is a foreign royal title that she is not forbidden from using privately in the US, but is inappropriate to be used for political activism in the middle of a domestic election.


At least that is my opinion.

I am really going to be interested to see what the results of the one year review will be.

 

[KellyAtLast]

Sussex fans must be scared that their titles could be taken away that’s why I see some of them here deflecting saying how oh harry was born a prince he will die a prince and the government has more important things to do. Give me a break. You guys are just scared. I can totally see parlamaint taking their titles away especially if Meghan continues on with her politics. And like some of you said the government has other things so they will probably be annoyed that a member of the royal family is making political speeches to a foreign country and make quick moves to take their titles away and put them in their place. And have you guys ever heard of multi tasking. Surely these officials can take on more than one subject at a time.

 

[Curryong]

Nonetheless, she does have the right NOT to vote, not least as a statement that she does not feel represented by any of the candidates/parties or what they stand for. Or because she simply doesn't agree with the system, or plainly doesn't care.

In some countries that have compulsory voting, there is actually a rather high percentage of spolied or blank ballots. Those are people who would rather normally not vote and are forced to do it, and have no other choice to voice their protest but to cast an invalid ballot. In fact it is as much a political statement as voting for candidate X, Y or Z.

That is not true in Australia. In fact the analysis of 'informal voting' or 'donkey vote' as it is known informally here hovers at around 5%.

https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/research/analysis-informal-voting-2016-election.htm

I don't consider that high in a country where well over 90% of the population turn up (or send postal votes ahead of time) to vote on Election Day for local councils, State Govts and Federal Govt.

As well, under our system of proportional representation candidates are numbered 1 to 10 or whatever number there are. Every candidate has to be numbered 1,2 etc. Therefore if someone goes down the list in sequence of 1 to 10 it is rather difficult to say whether that is their choice or 'a Donkey vote'.

Every now and again there is debate here on the issue of compulsory voting. My answer to objections has always been 'If you can't spare half an hour out of your day to vote what does that say about your vision of what your country could be?'

And also 'If you can't be bothered to go and vote then you don't have a leg to stand on afterwards until the next election if you complain about the new Govt or Opposition's policies and direction.'

 

[Osipi]

Sussex fans must be scared that their titles could be taken away that’s why I see some of them here deflecting saying how oh harry was born a prince he will die a prince and the government has more important things to do. Give me a break. You guys are just scared. I can totally see parlamaint taking their titles away especially if Meghan continues on with her politics. And like some of you said the government has other things so they will probably be annoyed that a member of the royal family is making political speeches to a foreign country and make quick moves to take their titles away and put them in their place. And have you guys ever heard of multi tasking. Surely these officials can take on more than one subject at a time.

In the UK, the peerage system has existed for a very long time and there's been countless of peers that have behaved badly, reflected on the public of the UK and the monarchy badly and still to this day, the *only* precedence for removal of a peerage is treason. The peerage system at this time is governed by The Peerage Act of 1963. Its not a matter of Parliament getting together over a few beers and deciding to remove a title. They would actively have to *amend* the Peerage Act so that a peer would be stripped of his title for (x) reasons. It would then be a precedent and applicable to *all* peers and not just Meghan Markle or Prince Andrew as a one time thing.

Kelly, I see you're from the US as I am so let me put it another way. To change the peerage system that is in place in the UK would be similar to our Congress amending an article of the Constitution. Once amended, it is in place for *all* peers and not on a one time personal basis. All peers in the UK that have that have behaved badly or brought "shame" to the monarchy and the peerage and in general, irritate and disgust the general population would be affected. Moreso if the passing of the amended Peerage Act was made retroactive. There have been peers of the realm that have done far, far worse than The Duchess of Sussex has done or is doing.

At least this is how I see it. I'm American so perhaps a British viewpoint on this and the Peerage Act can be more informative.

 

[Curryong]

How is a person (American-born) participating in an online summit dedicated to getting Ameicans out there to vote akin to 'Foreign interference'.

Meghan is neither urging potential voters to vote Democrat, nor doing so on behalf of the BRF. Trump has far more things to worry about than organisations that aim at increasing voter turnout. And even if he did complain (and look ridiculous) the British Govt would not take action. Plus, it would bring more US PR to When We All Vote. They'd be delighted, I'm sure.

There might be a private reproof from BP if British-born Harry began urging American voters to vote for Biden but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Harry has never commented on such things in Britain and is IMO he would never do so in the US.

 

[Mbruno]

How is a person (American-born) participating in an online summit dedicated to getting Ameicans out there to vote akin to 'Foreign interference'.

Meghan is neither urging potential voters to vote Democrat, nor doing so on behalf of the BRF. Trump has far more things to worry about than organisations that aim at increasing voter turnout. And even if he did complain (and look ridiculous) the British Govt would not take action. Plus, it would bring more US PR to When We All Vote. They'd be delighted, I'm sure.

There might be a private reproof from BP if British-born Harry began urging American voters to vote for Biden but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Harry has never commented on such things in Britain and is IMO he would never do so in the US.

It would be extremely odd if he did it considering that he is not a US citizen.


As for Meghan, she may not be doing it "on behalf of the Royal Family", but she is doing it using a British royal title, which is a delicate act. And she doesn't have to campaign for any specific candidate (even though the organizations she has been associating with it are clearly partisan). Simply by trying to influence voter turnout, or turnout in some specifc demographics, she is already indirectly affecting the outcome of the election, at least potentially.


Note that it is the title that gives Meghan a voice. So she is openly taking advantage of it to influence another country's election. That is a clear-cut conclusion to me.

Being an American and am more interested in the British monarchy and its people and its traditions than I am in American politics, if I think its kind of a no brainer to realize that a British title attached to an American citizen exercising her political rights to vote doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as influence goes. She can speak out as much as she wants to about anything she wants to as is her right as an American. I just know that no matter what she says, its not going to influence me in any way whether she has a British title because her husband's a prince or a Duke or Bozo the Clown or she is going on 80 years old with a long career in American politics.

Whether she can have an influence or not, it begs the question: if she doesn't need a title to exercise her political rights as an American citizen, why does she use one at all to engage in political speech? Why doesn't she book herself as a speaker at "When we all vote" as Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor? And please don't answer that "Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex" is her name because, in the US, I am pretty confident it is not (at least not legally).

 

[Curryong]

Sussex fans must be scared that their titles could be taken away that’s why I see some of them here deflecting saying how oh harry was born a prince he will die a prince and the government has more important things to do. Give me a break. You guys are just scared. I can totally see parlamaint taking their titles away especially if Meghan continues on with her politics. And like some of you said the government has other things so they will probably be annoyed that a member of the royal family is making political speeches to a foreign country and make quick moves to take their titles away and put them in their place. And have you guys ever heard of multi tasking. Surely these officials can take on more than one subject at a time.

I am a Harry fan and am not in the least bit 'scared' the 'titles will be taken away'. Perhaps you would like to explain to me (I actually was born in Britain and lived there for decades) when the last occasion occurred when Parliament acted on its own to take away a Royal peerage. I'd be interested in your answer.

After that perhaps you can explain why 'the Government' didn't take away the HRH and Princedoms from Edward VIII. And why the Dukedom of York hasnt been removed from Andrew.

When has a member of the Royal Family made political speeches in 'a foreign country'? American born Meghan is asking people to get out and vote. Harry, who has the Dukedom, has made no speeches about US politics.

As for 'putting them in their place', actually Harry's 'place' is as a prince and the second son of the Prince of Wales. And legally Meghan takes her status from her husband.

 

[Curryong]

It would be extremely odd if he did it considering that he is not a US citizen.


As for Meghan, she may not be doing it "on behalf of the Royal Family", but she is doing it using a British royal title, which is a delicate act. And she doesn't have to campaign for any specific candidate (even though the organizations she has been associating with it are clearly partisan). Simply by trying to influence voter turnout, or turnout in some specifc demographics, she is already indirectly affecting the outcome of the election, at least potentially.


Note that it is the title that gives Meghan a voice. So she is openly taking advantage of it to influence another country's election. That is a clear-cut conclusion to me.

You seem to be regarding organisations like the one she has just spoken on and Meghan herself as having a huge influence. That's not the case.

Let's hope that every citizen who is eligible to vote gets out to cast their vote in this Presidential election and all future ones. That includes 100% of Republican voters and 100% of Democrats. That would be true democracy in action.

Meghan's styling as a married woman is the Duchess of Sussex, which she is entitled to use. Harry doesn't appear to use any surname as such, so similarly Meghan wouldn't use Mountbatten-Windsor. Archie, not a Duke until his father dies, will probably use Mountbatten Windsor if he doesn't use Sussex.

Those royals with dukedoms usually use York, Gloucester, Kent etc when signing documents like wedding registers. Harry's full name is His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex, as written on baby Archie's birth certificate on May 5, 2020. He and William usually just write follow the custom of just writing their first names when asked to sign something on engagements.

 

[AC21091968]

I think in the Queen's weekly meetings (now phone calls due to COVID) with the Prime Minister, she and the Prime Minister need to discuss Parliament stripping them of their titles.

I don't think the discussion of removing the Duke of Sussex peerage title will happen soon, unless there is a huge public uproar/lobbying (i.e. Official parliament petition or groups of constituents lobbying their MPs). I don't think this is the top priority, as there are other important things right now in UK politics. However, it would not surprise me if backlash and petition do occur if Meghan does endorse a particular political party or candidate.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan doesn't have a dukedom. Like most wives in the UK she is regarded by custom to take her status (title if any) from her husband. And Harry, who did or said nothing publicly about any political party would deserve to have his Dukedom removed in those circumstances?

According to the current Peerage Act (1963) the only reason for a person to lose their peerage would be an act of treason. The odds on the removal of a Royal dukedom are even slighter as the title is personally bestowed by the Sovereign on a member of his/her family. Some German royals with British Dukedoms had them removed during the First World War as they were regarded as enemy aliens.

It takes over 100,000 signatures by petitioners with properly specified UK addresses and serious and legitimate national concerns for a petition to be even considered for debate in the Commons. Most are acknowledged and then quietly shelved.

 

[Kataryn]

I have a serious problem with this. If Meghan is participating in this as the Duchess of Sussex, she should not be. This amounts to a member of the BRF interfering in not just politics, but that of a foreign country. They don't tell people to get out and vote in their own country. I really think this one year review of the Sussex's quitting as working royals needs to happen a little quicker. Parliament needs to strip them of their titles.

I don't see the queen or Prince Charles to want to see them stripped of their titles. And as we know, even a divorced Royal duchess, who is no Royal anymore, cannot be prevented from using her former title as her name (Sarah, duchess of York...).
If a former Royal can use this ex-title to peddle a lot of things on TV, then I don't see what can be done about Meghan having an opinion and the right to express that, both in her home country and in the UK - there is no written law that Royals stay out of politics, after all.

As for parliament stripping them of their titles (or stripping Harry of his title and then? Couldn't Meghan use the name still? As a "former" Royal?) - does any politician want the spectacle of a Royal prince tried for treason (which treason?) when he actually did nothing but move to the US with his wife? With the risk that all freedom fighters come together and stand in front of them? With a Court of Justice declaring that they'd been within their rights to voice opinions? (And I don't think Meghan signed a non-disclosure agreement!)

IMHO for the politicians this is like letting her play in her US American sandbox. But IMHO the "grey men" should have thought about that scenario before they opened their blabbermouthes to the tabloids to create "intrigue"... Harry and Meghan's "freeing" themselves turned into a loose cannon alright. But I am sure it could have gone much more smoothly if they weren't sold out by people who took money to serve them!

I don't think the discussion of removing the Duke of Sussex peerage title will happen soon, unless there is a huge public uproar/lobbying (i.e. Official parliament petition or groups of constituents lobbying their MPs). I don't think this is the top priority, as there are other important things right now in UK politics. However, it would not surprise me if backlash and petition do occur if Meghan does endorse a particular political party or candidate.

Not if they win.

 

[Lilyflo]

I think what Meghan is doing is unwise. If she weren't a member of the BRF with a royal title, she wouldn't be included amongst those high profile women urging people to vote. She is well known to be a Democrat supporter and from what I've read, increasing the numbers who vote is beneficial to the Democrats. I can understand why she'd want to do that but she's trading on her royal name and status as wife of The Queen's grandson.

I have supported Meghan a lot on this forum when I thought she was treated unfairly by the press (and I still would) but I also think her actions often imply she's driven by a desire to be prominent on the world stage. That's not a huge failing but it's a problem if the action poses potential difficulties for the BRF, which I think this does.

There are many humanitarian causes she could fill her diary with so it's not like she's kicking around looking for something to do. It increasingly appears to me that she's seeking out ways to increase her personal exposure and build her brand, which is what she's done for years prior to marrying Harry. Maybe it's so ingrained in her that she can't see she's chasing celebrity and although there's nothing wrong with that in normal circumstances, she chooses to style herself as The Duchess of Sussex so she's exploiting her title for personal gain, which diminishes her in my eyes and probably in others' too.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan does support humanitarian causes she is interested in and has done so for years. However, I really can't see how appearing, in isolation, on a summit asking people to get out and vote is increasing her brand power and chasing celebrity and exposure. She's not appearing on red carpets, or late night shows by video link, nor fundraising for any political party, just appearing online on a summit that is likely to be viewed by a few thousand people at most.

 

[Osipi]

I have supported Meghan a lot on this forum when I thought she was treated unfairly by the press (and I still would) but I also think her actions often imply she's driven by a desire to be prominent on the world stage. That's not a huge failing but it's a problem if the action poses potential difficulties for the BRF, which I think this does.

If I'm remembering things lucidly, I recall the statement issued at the time of the decision to leave the "Firm" to parts unknown and ventures unknown and part of the official statement reads verbatim: "While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty."

The Queen values that her monarchy and her family remains apolitical and although Meghan is not showing party politics, I would imagine that the kerfluffle being created by Meghan by jumping on the "get out and vote" bandwagon is not amusing her one little bit. To really uphold the values that the Queen holds dear, I believe it would have been best for Meghan to avoid anything that even hints at politics. It seems as if Meghan is deliberately pushing the envelope. Notice I said "seems". I don't know Meghan's mind or her motives. She (and the Queen) may think its perfectly acceptable for all we know. This is just *my* perspective on it.

 

[RandyDrx]

I don't see the queen or Prince Charles to want to see them stripped of their titles. And as we know, even a divorced Royal duchess, who is no Royal anymore, cannot be prevented from using her former title as her name (Sarah, duchess of York...).
If a former Royal can use this ex-title to peddle a lot of things on TV, then I don't see what can be done about Meghan having an opinion and the right to express that, both in her home country and in the UK - there is no written law that Royals stay out of politics, after all.

As for parliament stripping them of their titles (or stripping Harry of his title and then? Couldn't Meghan use the name still? As a "former" Royal?) - does any politician want the spectacle of a Royal prince tried for treason (which treason?) when he actually did nothing but move to the US with his wife? With the risk that all freedom fighters come together and stand in front of them? With a Court of Justice declaring that they'd been within their rights to voice opinions? (And I don't think Meghan signed a non-disclosure agreement!)

IMHO for the politicians this is like letting her play in her US American sandbox. But IMHO the "grey men" should have thought about that scenario before they opened their blabbermouthes to the tabloids to create "intrigue"... Harry and Meghan's "freeing" themselves turned into a loose cannon alright. But I am sure it could have gone much more smoothly if they weren't sold out by people who took money to serve them!

There's a big difference between selling stuffs on TV and meddling in politics, the later can actually impact a whole country and affect people's lives.

 

[Lilyflo]

Meghan does support humanitarian causes she is interested in and has done so for years. However, I really can't see how appearing, in isolation, on a summit asking people to get out and vote is increasing her brand power and chasing celebrity and exposure. She's not appearing on red carpets, or late night shows by video link, nor fundraising for any political party, just appearing online on a summit that is likely to be viewed by a few thousand people at most.

Yes I'm very impressed with the humanitarian work she's done, including prior to Harry and I've always considered her to be 100% genuine in her desire to help people less fortunate.

I don't know how many people will see her but I'm guessing it's more than a few thousand who have noticed that she's encouraging people to vote. In one sense I'm pleased because if she has a positive impact on the democratic vote, it chimes with my own political stance but I'm trying to look at this objectively in terms of potential issues for the BRF.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Why do celebrities speak about voting? The same reason celebrities talk about covid and wearing masks. The same reason that they talk about their charity causes as well. Because people listen.


How many teens actually listen to their teachers? Sadly not that many. And many people who are out of school still don't vote.


So yeah if its going to take some actress, or some professional football player or some rock star who people idolize, to tell people to vote then fine lets throw what ever celebrity at it that is willing to do it, to do it. The point is to get people to get out and vote.

What do you think is more likely to get someone who has no interest in politics to get out and vote? A civics lesson on television? Or some hot celebrity talking about how they rock the vote? 9 times out of 10 it will be the second one who most of those non-voters wont turn the channel in 1.2 seconds from.


Its sad that you think its your 'right not to vote'. There are plenty of people in the country who don't have the right to vote. You have the priviledge to vote so vote. If you choose not to, fine. But to complain that someone is trying to convince people to vote???


What I was always told: if you don't get out and vote, don't ever complain about politics or how the country is going. Because you chose to not care how the election went. Maybe your vote would not have made a difference, but you still made the choice that politics doesn't matter to you. So either grin and bear what ever political manure storm you live in and not vote, or vote and have the right to an opinion.

Counter and nw rarely agree on much, but I deeply agree with her here.
I am not from the US but having lived there I am familiar with voting issues, due to discriminatory actions- past and present, that plagues it.

If some 18 year old girl who cares about what her idols are wearing and ig likes, or a 30 year old black person who has suffered racism all their lives and had it that much worse in the last 4 years, can be convinced by Meghan to go and vote.. by all means.. i’m cool with that.

I do, as was mentioned have an issue with her using her title.
I also find it hilarious because that is literally listed as her only achievement and reason for being there, while others have their incredible achievements listed she is only there because of the man she married..

 

[carlota]

I have no problem with Meghan encouraging people to vote. I’m doing that in my own personal life. The groups she’s working with seem to be really great organizations. However, what I have an issue with, and it seems like many people have an issue with, is her styling herself as the Duchess of Sussex while doing it. It rubs me the wrong way for her to be using her British title and style to make any kind of political statement even if not explicitly endorsing a candidate, because it’s very clear that royals do not publicly involve themselves in politics. I’m actually a bit surprised that she has been allowed to do so... maybe they didn’t consider that she would get vocal politically again (which surprises that they wouldn’t consider It since she’d been so vocal before her marriage). Can the royal family make her use “Meghan Markle” instead of the Duchess of Sussex when talking about political matters?

does it even matter how she's referred? 'Duchess of Sussex' is what she is whether people referred to her as that or as MM. The key issue is whether her involvement with an organisation such as this is appropriate, rather than how she is referred. the answer to that may be yes, but it needs to be clarified. I somehow doubt it was cleared by the RF though.

also, her political affiliation is know and very much available online by a simple google search so she may not be explicitly endorsing a candidate, but implicitely she may be. specially if this is aimed at the '18 year old girl who cares about what her idols are wearing and ig likes', then i think many of them may take her opinion at face value to decide who to vote for.

 

[Mbruno]

Meghan doesn't have a dukedom. Like most wives in the UK she is regarded by custom to take her status (title if any) from her husband. And Harry, who did or said nothing publicly about any political party would deserve to have his Dukedom removed in those circumstances?

I think that is not the discussion we are having here. Meghan takes her title (and the precedence and other privileges attached thereto) from her husband in the UK and possibly in the Commonwealth realms when she is visiting as a member of the BRF.

Her husband's title on the other hand has no legal standing in the US nor any status or precedence associated with it. And it is not part of her legal name either as it is in the UK. Using her title privately in the US is merely a personal choice for Meghan, which she could not make if she wanted to. But she uses it to gain some personal advantage or to boost her influence (not least in political causes) and, to many people, that is not right.


EDIT: If Harry and Meghan were still living in Canada, I guess there could be some ambiguity about Meghan's title, name and precedence. Although Canada does not normally recognize British titles that are held by its own citizens, members of the BRF, when visiting Canada, are accorded official precedence, below only the Queen of Canada and the Governor General, and are entitled to be addressed by their titles and as HRH . In the US, however, there is no ambiguity whatsoever and that is why I argued here that moving from BC to California would be consequential for the Sussexes.