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

[AC21091968]

As expected, Spectator USA (right-leaning political magazine, US edition of The Spectator) has released another critical opinion piece. Unlike The Telegraph with mixed perspective (up until this year), The Spectator (in UK, USA and Australian editions) mostly have negative opinions of Harry and Meghan, which could be traced back even when the coupled got engaged in 2017.

The piece itself raised the question on introducing "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," rather than "Meghan Markle" as some posters have mentioned.

https://spectator.us/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-voting-rights-activist/

It is behind a paywall, but I managed to find some extracts. I found them from a twitter account

https://twitter.com/x/status/1296210745802338311

Meghan Markle, voting rights activist
The Duchess of Sussex has some views about democracy!
By Caroline McCarthy August 19, 2020 5:27 PM

"when she makes these virtual appearances, she is billed not as Meghan Markle, a self-made, American-born, with a... lifelong commitment to social causes, but as Meghan, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, title she only has because she married a British prince"

"If you’re going to lecture the former colonies on how they should vote, maybe at least start by dropping the imperial title. Being committed to democracy and voting rights ought to be more than just a personal branding ploy"


For anyone who is interested in the piece that was critical of Meghan on her engagement. Here is the official tweet from The Spectator. Naturally, there was a massive backlash based on the tweets.

The Spectator (@Spectator)
"Meghan Markle is unsuitable as Prince Harry's wife for the same reason that Wallis Simpson was unsuitable: she’s divorced and Harry’s grandmother is supreme governor of the CofE"

https://twitter.com/x/status/935098939522633729

Here is the opening to the article. You need to be a subscription member to read the whole article

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle: the union of royalty and showbiz
By Melanie McDonagh 27 November 2017, 11:00am

[...]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-the-union-of-royalty-and-showbiz

Sorry for this very long post. I have edited this post

 

[camelot23ca]

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!




Not if they win.

If Meghan and Harry want to debase themselves by contributing to a book like Finding Freedom there’s not much the RF or the UK government can do. If they want to be the paid entertainment for a group of rich American bankers for an evening there’s also not much anyone in the UK can do.

OTOH If they start nosing around American politics in a way that the BRF or UK government feels inappropriate they’ll be shut down. And it won’t be through a trial for treason or anything ridiculous like that. It will be a discreet word from a UK government official to their counterpart in the US, (or, more likely in this case, to a member of the team that hopes to be part of the US government in the fall).

Campaigning and endorsements are obvious issues but all these get out the vote initiatives and the like tend to be officially or unofficially associated with either the Democratic or the Republican Party in the US and they have ways of getting the word out about potentially problematic people.

Simply put, Joe Biden and his team have been around the block enough to know why someone still in the line of succession to the British throne, (and his wife), can’t get too close to the American political process. We’re not talking about Omid Scobie here; these are serious people and they’re not going to risk embarrassing the government of one of America’s closest allies over something so stupid.

 

[Mbruno]

As expected, Spectator USA (right-leaning political magazine, US edition of The Spectator) has released another critical opinion piece. Unlike The Telegraph with mixed perspective (up until this year), The Spectator (in UK, USA and Australian editions) mostly have negative opinions of Harry and Meghan, which could be traced back even when the coupled got engaged in 2017.

The piece itself raised the question on introducing "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex," rather than "Meghan Markle" as some posters have mentioned.

https://spectator.us/meghan-markle-duchess-sussex-voting-rights-activist/

It is behind a paywall, but I managed to find some extracts. I found them from a twitter account

https://twitter.com/x/status/1296210745802338311

Meghan Markle, voting rights activist
The Duchess of Sussex has some views about democracy!
By Caroline McCarthy August 19, 2020 5:27 PM

"when she makes these virtual appearances, she is billed not as Meghan Markle, a self-made, American-born, with a... lifelong commitment to social causes, but as Meghan, DUCHESS OF SUSSEX, title she only has because she married a British prince"

"If you’re going to lecture the former colonies on how they should vote, maybe at least start by dropping the imperial title. Being committed to democracy and voting rights ought to be more than just a personal branding ploy"

Wasn't it obvious that someone, somewhere in the press would make that point? I'm surprised it didn't come earlier, but I guess Meghan is just getting started, so expect more of those articles in the future.

 

[duchessrachel]

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.

If their titles were removed, sadly, they would make themselves out to be victims and it would probably create a bigger brouhaha. [...]

 

[Pranter]

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..

Honestly I don't see what she did at the Premier that was so 'I want fame'?


LaRae

 

[Kataryn]

If Meghan and Harry want to debase themselves by contributing to a book like Finding Freedom there’s not much the RF or the UK government can do. If they want to be the paid entertainment for a group of rich American bankers for an evening there’s also not much anyone in the UK can do.

OTOH If they start nosing around American politics in a way that the BRF or UK government feels inappropriate they’ll be shut down. And it won’t be through a trial for treason or anything ridiculous like that. It will be a discreet word from a UK government official to their counterpart in the US, (or, more likely in this case, to a member of the team that hopes to be part of the US government in the fall).

Campaigning and endorsements are obvious issues but all these get out the vote initiatives and the like tend to be officially or unofficially associated with either the Democratic or the Republican Party in the US and they have ways of getting the word out about potentially problematic people.

Simply put, Joe Biden and his team have been around the block enough to know why someone still in the line of succession to the British throne, (and his wife), can’t get too close to the American political process. We’re not talking about Omid Scobie here; these are serious people and they’re not going to risk embarrassing the government of one of America’s closest allies over something so stupid.

My, my if your post were not so negative of them, they surely would love it, because you take their influence as being really serious! I really don't anyone besides that Royalty-loving Trump is doing this in the US when it comes to politicians...


IMHO they both are simply not really important. Harry is not in the direct line and more or less quiet, Meghan is trying to help underpriviledged women (and she needs the next elections to go to the democrats, if she is really looking for chance over her small charities' efforts). Apart from that there are no scandals and if people weren't so interested in them, there would be not much media attention.


When they speak as president and vice president of the Commonwealth trust, then their message counts and they are doing a good job supporting the queen there. But that's where they count in the Uk, not the US.

 

[acdc1]

Call me cynical, but it’s becoming more and more clear to me that Meghan was never really serious about being a working royal and devoting herself to working for the good of people in the UK. I think that she was primarily using it as a stepping stone to get the influence and platform that she didn’t have as a C-list actress to build a brand and advocate for her chosen causes. Once she had that, she was “out.” I’m all for helping others and she and I have very similar political and social opinions, but it’s becoming more and more clear that what she values are fame and influence above everything.

 

[Denville]

Call me cynical, but it’s becoming more and more clear to me that Meghan was never really serious about being a working royal and devoting herself to working for the good of people in the UK. I think that she was primarily using it as a stepping stone to get the influence and platform that she didn’t have as a C-list actress to build a brand and advocate for her chosen causes. Once she had that, she was “out.” I’m all for helping others and she and I have very similar political and social opinions, but it’s becoming more and more clear that what she values are fame and influence above everything.

yes but how serious are the charities and political causes even? I think that what she wanted was wealth fame and ego boosting. She probably was never that committed to the Royal role but if she was willing to give it a shot, it was largely because it supplied wealth, fame and she hoped ego boosting. When she learned that she would have restrictions and that she and H would always be playing second fiddle, she got restless and could not even bring herself to stick it out for 2 or 3 years to build up the profile that she needed.. so they "jumped out" in a rather hasty way that has left people shakng their heads, even those who were sympathetic to her...

 

[muriel]

yes but how serious are the charities and political causes even? I think that what she wanted was wealth fame and ego boosting. She probably was never that committed to the Royal role but if she was willing to give it a shot, it was largely because it supplied wealth, fame and she hoped ego boosting. When she learned that she would have restrictions and that she and H would always be playing second fiddle, she got restless and could not even bring herself to stick it out for 2 or 3 years to build up the profile that she needed.. so they "jumped out" in a rather hasty way that has left people shakng their heads, even those who were sympathetic to her...

I hear what you say, but I just do not think that they expected to leave the BRF. I think H&M are deluded enough to believe their support amongst certain sections of Twittersphere was enough for them to demand and expect to get their proposed half-in and half-out arrangement they wanted. They thought by putting the announcement out of 8 January they would force the issue, and were probably completely taken aback by the response they got.

This, IMO, was precisely why the messaging from H&M has been so inconsistent: from Harry's speech at the Sentebale dinner to Meghan's supposed comments in Finding Freedom about it not needing to have to come to this.

 

[Denville]

I hear what you say, but I just do not think that they expected to leave the BRF. I think H&M are deluded enough to believe their support amongst certain sections of Twittersphere was enough for them to demand and expect to get their proposed half-in and half-out arrangement they wanted. They thought by putting the announcement out of 8 January they would force the issue, and were probably completely taken aback by the response they got.

This, IMO, was precisely why the messaging from H&M has been so inconsistent: from Harry's speech at the Sentebale dinner to Meghan's supposed comments in Finding Freedom about it not needing to have to come to this.

I agree, I think that they both thought that they would be able to be half and halfers.. so they'd have the security of being royals still of doing a bit of royal work, and spending more and more time in the US making money and doing the sort of charity appearances that Hollywood stars do.. I suspect that if they HAD been allowed to do this, it would have drifted into Harry coming home most often to do some royal work/charity stuff in the UK and Meghan being mainly based in the US...and probably being involved in politics in the way that she is now..
I DO think.. that she saw it like being in a TV show, where you can do other work when the show isn't being filmed.. and if you are lucky you can revise your contract to suit yourself...ie if you are really popular in the show you're in, you can get better terms for yourself, and do less episodes...From what seems to be said in the book, they saw their wedding being so popular as "giving them a special status".. ie. "We are really popular royals, our wedding had X numbers watching it so therefore we deserve more favourable terms

 

[irish_royalist]

I agree, I think that they both thought that they would be able to be half and halfers.. so they'd have the security of being royals still of doing a bit of royal work, and spending more and more time in the US making money and doing the sort of charity appearances that Hollywood stars do.. I suspect that if they HAD been allowed to do this, it would have drifted into Harry coming home most often to do some royal work/charity stuff in the UK and Meghan being mainly based in the US...and probably being involved in politics in the way that she is now..
I DO think.. that she saw it like being in a TV show, where you can do other work when the show isn't being filmed.. and if you are lucky you can revise your contract to suit yourself...ie if you are really popular in the show you're in, you can get better terms for yourself, and do less episodes...From what seems to be said in the book, they saw their wedding being so popular as "giving them a special status".. ie. "We are really popular royals, our wedding had X numbers watching it so therefore we deserve more favourable terms

The really sad thing is that this woman could have had so much power to change so many things for some many people in the world - if only she had been able to eschew the limelight for herself and worked hard behind the scenes on those causes which do not hit the headlines.
Instead, she has shown herself as self-centred and media-hungry, and now organisations which can change things for ordinary people will avoid her like the plague, because of all the negative publicity which she brings.

 

[Missjersey]

Honestly I don't see what she did at the Premier that was so 'I want fame'?


LaRae

When Harry pitched a job for her, IMO, he would only do so if he knew her wishes. I think Hollywood was on her mind back then...

 

[Pranter]

When Harry pitched a job for her, IMO, he would only do so if he knew her wishes. I think Hollywood was on her mind back then...

Doing a voice over for a charity is hardly an indication she's headed to Hollywood. She's done nothing to give that impression since then either.



LaRae

 

[Lee-Z]

Doing a voice over for a charity is hardly an indication she's headed to Hollywood. She's done nothing to give that impression since then either.



LaRae

There is a englishlanguage link somewhere in this thread i think but can't find it quickly so here's the dutch link
https://www.nu.nl/film/6071677/meghan-markle-en-prins-harry-pitchen-nieuw-project-in-hollywood.html

"Meghan Markle and the British Prince Harry are looking in Hollywood for parties interested in their television project, sources report to Variety. The couple had already had exploratory talks in June, the entertainment title reports.

At the moment it is not clear what kind of project it is, but according to well-informed sources, everything points to a television series. The couple would also like to cooperate as producers."

 

[Missjersey]

Doing a voice over for a charity is hardly an indication she's headed to Hollywood. She's done nothing to give that impression since then either.



LaRae

I feel different than you on this Pranter. I see it different. The Premier was in London and now, we’ll, Santa Barbara is a lot closer to Hollywood where she now sits. Of all the places they could have found the “peace and quiet” they were suppose to be seeking... it seems part of the end game to me...

 

[US Royal Watcher]

[....]
[.....]
With respect to Meghan and Harry, I am still not clear as to exactly how Meghan and Harry wanted to modernize the monarchy - other than to use American media more. I personally, do not understand what the advantage would be. The American media is just as willing to tear others down as the British media is - its all about ratings. Moreover, I think the courtiers had legitimate concerns about not giving preference to the British media because Harry is British royalty.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I feel different than you on this Pranter. I see it different. The Premier was in London and now, we’ll, Santa Barbara is a lot closer to Hollywood where she now sits. Of all the places they could have found the “peace and quiet” they were suppose to be seeking... it seems part of the end game to me...

In fairness, they are closer to Doria and many of Meghan's friends. She grew up in Southern California.

 

[Missjersey]

In fairness, they are closer to Doria and many of Meghan's friends. She grew up in Southern California.

Point taken !

 

[QueenMathilde]

In fairness, they are closer to Doria and many of Meghan's friends. She grew up in Southern California.

But Meghan and Harry have pretty much cut off everyone but Doria and Oprah. And Tyler Perry.

 

[Osipi]

But Meghan and Harry have pretty much cut off everyone but Doria and Oprah. And Tyler Perry.

We don't know that. That's only what has been reported. They're spending a lot of time under the radar. They moved into their own home and no on knew about it for weeks. They could very well be very much keeping their private life just that. Private.

Covid-19 has curtailed a lot of things. Its very possible that if this pandemic never happened, we'd hear about them visiting Granny at Balmoral even.

 

[Pranter]

I feel different than you on this Pranter. I see it different. The Premier was in London and now, we’ll, Santa Barbara is a lot closer to Hollywood where she now sits. Of all the places they could have found the “peace and quiet” they were suppose to be seeking... it seems part of the end game to me...

They've had months and months (even with Covid) to be doing something 'with' Hollywood and we've seen nothing. No press about upcoming projects. We've only seen them doing various charity and PSA type things.

They moved farther away from Hollywood (100 miles I believe)....and of course as already mentioned family. Hardly surprising she'd move closer to her mom...what would of been odd would of been them moving to Nebraska.



LaRae

 

[LadyRaven]

They've had months and months (even with Covid) to be doing something 'with' Hollywood and we've seen nothing. No press about upcoming projects. We've only seen them doing various charity and PSA type things.

They moved farther away from Hollywood (100 miles I believe)....and of course as already mentioned family. Hardly surprising she'd move closer to her mom...what would of been odd would of been them moving to Nebraska.



LaRae

To be fair Hollywood has came to a grinding halt for months . Disney itself was just crawling. Most studios have had tremendous losses. Amc movies theaters almost went bankrupt. Hollywood won’t be doing any deals with anyone for a while

 

[LauraS3514]

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.

Not quite true. Non-royal peers sign their titles; on Charles and Diana's wedding certificate her father signed "Spencer" and her grandmother signed "Ruth Fermoy" (her late husband's peerage.) Royal Peers are by definition Royal Highnesses and sign just their Christian names i.e. "Philip" not "Edinburgh," "Richard" not "Gloucester" and "Edward" not "Wessex" or "Kent" etc. In the same way, the York Princesses remain Royal Highnesses and sign just "Beatrice" and "Eugenie" officially. William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie "borrowed" their father's peerages to use as a surname at school but only the women still use it (Eugenie hasn't used "Brooksbank" professionally as of now.) William and Harry just sign those names; Catherine and Meghan do the same.

 

[Kataryn]

I feel different than you on this Pranter. I see it different. The Premier was in London and now, we’ll, Santa Barbara is a lot closer to Hollywood where she now sits. Of all the places they could have found the “peace and quiet” they were suppose to be seeking... it seems part of the end game to me...

LA is not only Hollywood but Meghan's home town and her mother lives there.

 

[Denville]

Point taken !

True but their first move was to Canada and the initial agreement with the RF seemed to be that they were going to live in Canada.. and then there was that rather sudden dash to LA. Either they always intended to go for Hollywood, and Canada was a rather cynical blind.. or Canada was a start up.. where they thought it would be cheaper than Hollywood/LA but near enough to work in the USA. I think that they believed the Canadian govt would welcome them, give them free security, and they could work in the USA. But Covid came along, and they didn't want to be stuck there indefinitely, and the Govt said their free security was coming to an end...so they made a sudden move to LA.

 

[Denville]

The really sad thing is that this woman could have had so much power to change so many things for some many people in the world - if only she had been able to eschew the limelight for herself and worked hard behind the scenes on those causes which do not hit the headlines.
Instead, she has shown herself as self-centred and media-hungry, and now organisations which can change things for ordinary people will avoid her like the plague, because of all the negative publicity which she brings.

But while she may genuinely believe that she's in it to change the world, in fact her real underlying motive is fame and ego boosting and fortune.. So once they were told they could not be half and half, that money making was not on the agenda, IMO they didn't hesitate for long before saying that they would eschew the "life of service".

 

[Pranter]

True but their first move was to Canada and the initial agreement with the RF seemed to be that they were going to live in Canada.. and then there was that rather sudden dash to LA.

They were already vacationing in Canada when this all broke...I think they did plan to stay there IF they had been able to be part time working Royals with two bases as they posted on the now 'dead' website. When that fell thru then they decided to go to the U.S. Naturally, since she has family ties there, they went to Ca. So really when you look at the series of events there wasn't any sudden dash except for the fact they wanted to get to Ca ahead of any travel restrictions due to Covid.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

Doing a voice over for a charity is hardly an indication she's headed to Hollywood. She's done nothing to give that impression since then either.



LaRae

They have both signed up with an Agency who represent speech makers, haven't they?

 

[Mbruno]

They were already vacationing in Canada when this all broke...I think they did plan to stay there IF they had been able to be part time working Royals with two bases as they posted on the now 'dead' website. When that fell thru then they decided to go to the U.S. Naturally, since she has family ties there, they went to Ca. So really when you look at the series of events there wasn't any sudden dash except for the fact they wanted to get to Ca ahead of any travel restrictions due to Covid.


LaRae

Moving to California did not solve the couple's security problem as no one is paying for their security in the US either and they are probably more exposed in LA or Santa Barbara than they were in BC. I suppose the issues with Canada were that, first, they could not figure out their immigration status, including their ability to work legally (maybe Harry naively thought they could stay indefinitely in Canada just because he is a British prince) and, second, the US was not only better for business, but also for Meghan's activism.



I discussed the latter in a previous post: although Canada does not recognize British titles held by Canadian citizens, British royals are still associated with the Crown, which is subject to similar constraints in Canada as in the UK. So, while Meghan is free to engage in political activism in the US as a US citizen, there could be issues with the Canadian government or the Canadian opposition if she did the same in Canada. I am pretty convinced she would have to show more restraint there.


I don't think family was a major factor in their decision. As far as we know, Meghan's family connections are restricted to her mother only and they have lived apart (including in different countries) for quite some time now (over a decade at least).

 

[Denville]

I think that the USA was always the desired place but they were willing to stick Canada for a few years...
However they were probably advised between January and March that they would have to go through the normal channels to get permission to live and work there and that fazed them... and that they would have to pay for their own security after March and that was even more of a factor...I Am sure that Meg wanted to be near her mother, but the main reason was that there would be opportunities in LA for work that weren't there in Canada...However I thin that's a bit optimisitc in that it will be ages before they can do anyting in HOllywood or speaking engagements in the US...