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

[Hallo girl]

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.

I must be honest I do not often agree with you, but with part of this post I do.
The way things are standing at the moment I cannot see a situation where Harry would have his titles removed by parliament.

Meghan is an American citizen, and no longer a working member of the royal family, and as such is entitled as I see it to discuss American politics.
Although from what I have seen and heard she is discussing the importance of voting.
I was uncomfortable with her quoting her husband as not having the vote in the interview when she was discussing people who were disenfranchised. Different situations, not the best example she could have quoted.

AS long as neither of them become embroiled in British politics and likewise Harry stays out of American politics , I personally cannot see a problem.

I will not become involved discussing the other Dukes.

 

[Kataryn]

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).

That was before there was a baby. Babies change things, especially between the daughter becoming a mother, too.

 

[Denville]

I must be honest I do not often agree with you, but with part of this post I do.
The way things are standing at the moment I cannot see a situation where Harry would have his titles removed by parliament.

Meghan is an American citizen, and no longer a working member of the royal family, and as such is entitled as I see it to discuss American politics.
Although from what I have seen and heard she is discussing the importance of voting.
I was uncomfortable with her quoting her husband as not having the vote in the interview when she was discussing people who were disenfranchised. Different situations, not the best example she could have quoted.

AS long as neither of them become embroiled in British politics and likewise Harry stays out of American politics , I personally cannot see a problem.

I will not become involved discussing the other Dukes.

It is unlikely that the queen woudl move to take away Harry's HRH.. but that's because she is a conservative adn would not wish to take away a royal's privileges.. even wiht Andrew. And the British parliament has a LOT of other stuff on their minds so they aren't going to waste time taking away the Dukedom. However, re Meghan, yes she ahs a right if she wishes to discuss American politics but when she seems to be giving out wrong information ie comparing her husband's obeying the convention that Roayals do not vote with the suppression of voting right for African Americans in bygone days, she is just getting things wrong and its not IMO acceptable

 

[Denville]

That was before there was a baby. Babies change things, especially between the daughter becoming a mother, too.

Archie was born in May 2019... Meg and Harry left the UK in December and went on their trip to Canada and then left royal life altogether. THey don't appear to have been to see Doria or planned to live near her until March 2020 when the borders were about to close...

 

[AC21091968]

[...]

I think most readers of tabloid turn against Harry and Meghan at the time was when the couple end "co-operation" with the Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express and The Mirror. Other causes include: The African Documentary, how H&M have acted in exiting senior royal family duties and the Finding Freedom book.

 

[Denville]

[...]
I think most readers of tabloid turn against Harry and Meghan at the time was when the couple end "co-operation" with the Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Express and The Mirror.

I dont think the readers of any of the tabloids who comment are very favourabel towards Meg and H...

 

[AC21091968]

I dont think the readers of any of the tabloids who comment are very favourabel towards Meg and H...

You're right. The only news publication that shows mostly positive opinions towards Meghan and Harry, that I could think of on top of head is The Guardian (Anti-monarchy and left-leaning)

I am not quite sure if The New Statesmen and The Canary do count as well

 

[Denville]

You're right. The only news publication that shows mostly positive opinions towards Meghan and Harry, that I could think of on top of head is The Guardian (Anti-monarchy and left-leaning)

I am not quite sure if The New Statesmen and The Canary do count as well

I don't read the Guardian but if its sympathetic towards H and Meg I think it is on the lines that "Royal life is so difficult for the royals as well as for the ordinary people who are expected to defer to them".... so they claim to sympathise with a couple who have walked out on Royal Life...

 

[RandyDrx]

Am I the only one who thinks that it reeks of colonialism that Meghan, a woman who married into the BRF starts lecturing Americans about politics?


Granted, she's American. But the least she could do is start introducing herself as "Meghan Markle" instead of using the royal title of "The Duchess of Sussex", especially after they whinged about the BRF.


At least they are consistent with their hypocrisy though, I give them that.

 

[AC21091968]

Am I the only one who thinks that it reeks of colonialism that Meghan, a woman who married into the BRF starts lecturing Americans about politics?


Granted, she's American. But the least she could do is start introducing herself as "Meghan Markle" instead of using the royal title of "The Duchess of Sussex", especially after they whinged about the BRF.


At least they are consistent with their hypocrisy though, I give them that.

No, I agree with you on their hypocrisy as well.

 

[Kataryn]

Am I the only one who thinks that it reeks of colonialism that Meghan, a woman who married into the BRF starts lecturing Americans about politics?


Granted, she's American. But the least she could do is start introducing herself as "Meghan Markle" instead of using the royal title of "The Duchess of Sussex", especially after they whinged about the BRF.


At least they are consistent with their hypocrisy though, I give them that.

Here in Germany, people can use their names, even if they include a former title. Like Beatrix Herzogin von Oldenburg (who is named Beatrix von Storch after her recent marriage).

 

[Denville]

Here in Germany, people can use their names, even if they include a former title. Like Beatrix Herzogin von Oldenburg (who is named Beatrix von Storch after her recent marriage).

The point is that Meghan is an American citizen and as such, her title is irrelevant. She can use it if she wants to, but as an American, a citizen of a republic, talking about American politics, it might be wiser not to use her title of nobility

 

[Hallo girl]

The point is that Meghan is an American citizen and as such, her title is irrelevant. She can use it if she wants to, but as an American, a citizen of a republic, talking about American politics, it might be wiser not to use her title of nobility

I see where you are coming from with that one, it is all about the optics.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts have been edited or deleted (together with subsequent responses) as they are off-topic. We don't need to discuss opinion polls about current US president or the forthcoming US election beyond Meghan's recent zoom events.

Further, please do NOT try to make connections between the support of political parties and support or otherwise of members of the royal family - it is presumptuous and not a dicussion we wish to have within the threads. Thank you.

 

[AC21091968]

In regards to Meghan speaking about women voting and potentially touching political ground, there has been a debate (or newspaper review) on Sky news. I couldn't find the whole debate, but I found one contributor, who has posted his opinion on his Twitter account. Tom Harwood is a reporter from Guido Fawkes, a conservative politics news website. From looking at his profile and interview, he is a monarchist, unlike some radio presenters from TalkRadio, despite having right-leaning views.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1297120073707130882

Link to Tom's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harwood

If someone could find the full clip or other contributor's segment, it would be great if you can post them.

 

[JessRulz]

A series of speculative posts that are unhelpful in the current environment of the Sussex threads have been removed.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Meghan only said "vote wisely", and that could mean either Trump or Biden depending on your politics. I'm sure she knew that if she encouraged people to vote for a particular candidate, there would be even more of a fuss than there has been already on this video. Of course, Piers Morgan had to have his say!

 

[Mbruno]

Meghan only said "vote wisely", and that could mean either Trump or Biden depending on your politics. I'm sure she knew that if she encouraged people to vote for a particular candidate, there would be even more of a fuss than there has been already on this video. Of course, Piers Morgan had to have his say!

However, during that "When we all vote" event, she talked about "the change we need". I suppose that,in an election where the incumbent stands for continuity, advocating change can be implicitly interpreted as endorsing the opposition, can't it?

 

[Durham]

She said:

"We all know what’s at stake this year....I know it. And all of you certainly know it if you’re here on this fun event with this, then you’re all just as mobilised and just as energised to see the change that we all need and deserve,

 

[Durham]

However, during that "When we all vote" event, she talked about "the change we need". I suppose that,in an election where the incumbent stands for continuity, advocating change can be implicitly interpreted as endorsing the opposition, can't it?

Oh yes.

It's quite clear what she meant. Shameless.

 

[Claire]

Odd I have always believed that a democracy entails you the right to as well as not to vote. In countries where you are legally obligated to voice, the right to spoil you ballot to made clear.
If only half the electorate turns out to vote on Election Day you are sending a very clear pictures onto all parties about the issues and leadership, any pollster and party will tell you that. Regardless of what celebrities tell you, not voting is in any way compliant to the status quo it is often civil disobedience and disengagement with the current state of affairs. They should teach that in American Goverment 101. If you don’t want either candidate , purposely spoil your ballot or don’t vote. That is your democratic right.

 

[Denville]

Oh yes.

It's quite clear what she meant. Shameless.

Shameless seems a litlte strong. She's stupid, shes arrogant, but this is all stuff that was pretty visiible from early on..

 

[Durham]

Shameless seems a litlte strong. She's stupid, shes arrogant, but this is all stuff that was pretty visiible from early on..

Well she has no shame in breaking the usual conventions so I'm not sure how else to describe her actions really. It's about what she's doing not about her per se.

 

[Denville]

It may be wrong, depending on your point of view but its hardly shameless... She may genuinely believe that now that she's left the RF and returned to the US, she is not bound by rules about "being involved in politics"...

 

[Durham]

It may be wrong, depending on your point of view but its hardly shameless... She may genuinely believe that now that she's left the RF and returned to the US, she is not bound by rules about "being involved in politics"...

We're not going to agree on this point I think.

She may as you say genuinely believe she's not bound by the rules any more so I understand your point. If that's the case someone needs to remind her. And him of course. At least the duchess might have the ghost of an excuse but the duke doesn't.

 

[AC21091968]

In regards to the number of people agreeing to remove the Duke of Sussex title, I found a statistic with a large sample. I'm aware that it is from The Daily Express (right-leaning tabloid), where readers have relatively strong conservative and anti-Meghan opinions.

"Express.co.uk ran a series on polls – including the question Should Prince Harry and Meghan Markle be stripped of their Sussex royal title – as part of a mega survey on Meghan, Harry and the Royal Family from August 14 to August 18. There were 59,523 respondents."

"89% of respondents (52,903 people) replied yes, while just 9% (5,470) said no and 2% (1,150) responded they did not know"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...al-titles-lose-duke-duchess-sussex-royal-poll

 

[Denville]

We're not going to agree on this point I think.

She may as you say genuinely believe she's not bound by the rules any more so I understand your point. If that's the case someone needs to remind her. And him of course. At least the duchess might have the ghost of an excuse but the duke doesn't.

Since she isn't a working royal any more, and isn't living in the UK, I think its a bit difficult... She has a right as an American citizen, to vote and to take part in politics...

 

[Durham]

Since she isn't a working royal any more, and isn't living in the UK, I think its a bit difficult... She has a right as an American citizen, to vote and to take part in politics...

Well of course but that's not the issue.

It's whether "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" as she was described should be involved.

Meghan Markle or Mrs Mountbatten-Windsor can do what she wants.

 

[acdc1]

In regards to the number of people agreeing to remove the Duke of Sussex title, I found a statistic with a large sample. I'm aware that it is from The Daily Express (right-leaning tabloid), where readers have relatively strong conservative and anti-Meghan opinions.

"Express.co.uk ran a series on polls – including the question Should Prince Harry and Meghan Markle be stripped of their Sussex royal title – as part of a mega survey on Meghan, Harry and the Royal Family from August 14 to August 18. There were 59,523 respondents."

"89% of respondents (52,903 people) replied yes, while just 9% (5,470) said no and 2% (1,150) responded they did not know"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...al-titles-lose-duke-duchess-sussex-royal-poll

It may be a large sample, but it’s certainly a biased sample. It’s biased because of the readership (conservative, anti-Meghan) and because those willing to take the survey have strong opinions on the matter (someone who is reading the survey/article and doesn’t care either way probably won’t respond to it).

Personally, while I don’t think their titles should be officially stripped by parliament, I think that Buckingham Palace should go beyond limiting the use of HRH and totally limit them from using their titles in situations where they are not representing the royal family in an official capacity. And since they aren’t working royals anymore, these opportunities will be very rare. They want to be private citizens and walked away from royal life, they need to be treated as such and not go around flaunting titles. Whether they go by Harry and Meghan Sussex or Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or Harry Mountbatten-Windsor and Meghan Markle... I just don’t think they should be using British titles when they are living and working in a place where titles aren’t recognized in private citizens (which, again, they are by their own decision).

 

[Mbruno]

Personally, while I don’t think their titles should be officially stripped by parliament, I think that Buckingham Palace should go beyond limiting the use of HRH and totally limit them from using their titles in situations where they are not representing the royal family in an official capacity.

How could the Palace do that though? Meghan is in California, outside the Palace's jurisdiction, and, if they wanted to, they could not sue her for calling herself the Duchess of Sussex as that is who she is legally, at least in the UK. In the US, on the other hand, although her title is not recognized by the US government or the state government of California, there is nothing really that forbids her AFAIK from using it privately.

Harry would have to renounce his title(s), however, if he became a US citizen as the law requires it (interestingly only for naturalized citizens), and that would of course affect Meghan too. I suppose that, after publicly renouncing his title, he would not use it anymore although I don't know if the renunciation in the US would have any legal effect in the UK properly (probably not).