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

[tommy100]

I think the point I wonder most about is if they are so happy to lead "non-royal" lives why do they want the title still? Ultimately Meghan and Harry are free to talk about whatever the heck they like, its doing so while using a title given to Harry by the Queen for what was intended to be a senior working royal. To be honest if Meghan so wants to talk about US politics I don't see why she wouldn't be happy to do so without the female form of her British husbands UK title.

There is a lot of talk about legalities and what is needed to strip the title etc. But really that is just blowing things up out of proportion. In reality a more flexible approach by Meghan and Harry would be all that is needed- they said they wanted to be "respectful of the Queen" and if they are truly and wish to remain "a valued part of Her Majesty’s family" they would happily stop using their UK titles for this specific purpose to avoid any possibility of come back onto Her Majesty.

On a side not - of course the Queen and Parliament could stop Meghan from calling herself the Duchess of Sussex - they gave her the title and they can remove it, whether she is in California, the UK or Timbuktu. But again, no one is saying they want to, its about everyone looking out for protecting the Queen as Sovereign and the institution of monarchy which despite H&Ms personal issues with is a valued British institution. Of course everyone hopes H&M will respect that and exercise care for it while pursuing their own goals. IMO Meghan shouldn't use "The Duchess of Sussex" while speaking at increasingly partisan political things, I'm not fussed about legalities of it etc and if going down that route was the only way to stop her I wouldn't want to see it happen, I'd like her and Harry to decide that if it unsettling some people and putting the Queen in a potentially uncomfortable position the best thing to do would not be to use it, voluntarily, on this particular issue. Forget about legalities and over dramatising it, a little compromise and consideration goes a long way.

 

[gerry]

I think the point I wonder most about is if they are so happy to lead "non-royal" lives why do they want the title still? Ultimately Meghan and Harry are free to talk about whatever the heck they like, its doing so while using a title given to Harry by the Queen for what was intended to be a senior working royal. To be honest if Meghan so wants to talk about US politics I don't see why she wouldn't be happy to do so without the female form of her British husbands UK title.

This question is being asked by many; I also find it somewhat odd that the Duchess is commenting on events that are clearly encouraging Americans to exercise their right to vote. That she continues to use her title (she could also say Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor after all: she did this to her son!) is, I think, in deference to her husbands status. However, we did glimpse him (at least, a far off male figure) in the window heading out to practice some sports in their well equipped new backyard, so clearly he is not involved in this particular Meghan project. Perhaps she, the Duchess, was simply invited to comment and she was, of course, happy to give her money's worth. I think the duchess is treading a slippery slope; we shall see how far she is allowed to go before the 'men in grey' apply the brakes and stop a very interesting historical intervention in American politics. Mind you, if the Russians are allowed to use their influence in American elections, I don't see why members of the British Royal Family can't.....

 

[Mbruno]

This question is being asked by many; I also find it somewhat odd that the Duchess is commenting on events that are clearly encouraging Americans to exercise their right to vote. That she continues to use her title (she could also say Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor after all: she did this to her son!) is, I think, in deference to her husbands status. However, we did glimpse him (at least, a far off male figure) in the window heading out to practice some sports in their well equipped new backyard, so clearly he is not involved in this particular Meghan project. Perhaps she, the Duchess, was simply invited to comment and she was, of course, happy to give her money's worth. I think the duchess is treading a slippery slope; we shall see how far she is allowed to go before the 'men in grey' apply the brakes and stop a very interesting historical intervention in American politics. Mind you, if the Russians are allowed to use their influence in American elections, I don't see why members of the British Royal Family can't.....

Neither the Russians nor the BRF are "allowed" of course to influence the American elections, nor should they try to do that.


Having said that, the US government itself tried to influence elections in several foreign countries in the past, especially in the developing world.

There is a lot of talk about legalities and what is needed to strip the title etc. But really that is just blowing things up out of proportion. In reality a more flexible approach by Meghan and Harry would be all that is needed- they said they wanted to be "respectful of the Queen" and if they are truly and wish to remain "a valued part of Her Majesty’s family" they would happily stop using their UK titles for this specific purpose to avoid any possibility of come back onto Her Majesty.

I agree with that, but I am not sure Meghan is willing to be flexible or reasonable for that matter. In fact, her flexibility seems to be diminishing since she left the UK. Maybe the PoW could reach out directly to Harry and Harry could then have a chat with Meghan, but he seems to be wary of doing anything that might contradict his wife's wishes.

It all boils down really to how important it still is for Harry to leave a door open back into the RF for him and his son. Meghan seems to be closing all the doors pretty quickly.

 

[acdc1]

To me continuing to use the title in a private working capacity just screams of wanting attention. Other members of the royal family who work privately usually use other names rather than their official titles when they’re acting as private citizens, which Harry and Meghan are now. Harry himself used Harry Wales when he was in the army.

 

[Osipi]

Then again, I don't think Meghan's title really means anything to the average American. If you ask people on the street who The Duke is, they're going to tell you John Wayne. We also have our queens and princes and kings. Queen Latifah, Prince, The King of Pop and The King of Rock n' Roll.

To be honest, I don't think many Americans would really associate Meghan speaking out politically with the British government system, The Queen or the BRF all that much. Titles just don't mean anything much here at all. I've even been called queen. The Queen of Typos!!

 

[AC21091968]

Then again, I don't think Meghan's title really means anything to the average American. If you ask people on the street who The Duke is, they're going to tell you John Wayne. We also have our queens and princes and kings. Queen Latifah, Prince, The King of Pop and The King of Rock n' Roll.

To be honest, I don't think many Americans would really associate Meghan speaking out politically with the British government system, The Queen or the BRF all that much. Titles just don't mean anything much here at all. I've even been called queen. The Queen of Typos!!

Especially now most young people are liberally using the term "Queen" to describe female influencer and celebrities, who are strong and independent.

I do think the Queen (perhaps Duke of Edinburgh as well), Prime Minister, Privy Counsellors or other Cabinet Minister may have a word with Harry and Meghan about not publicly involved in politics and US elections.

By not publicly I mean, Meghan can vote in US election as a private citizen and not tell the public how she voted. This includes not getting involved in campaigning or swaying voters.

 

[Osipi]

I think the only person needed to be "talked to" about staying out of politics in the US is Harry and really, so far, he's not stuck his nose anywhere near the political circus. Meghan, as an American citizen and not a citizen of the UK, can do whatever she wants to do when it comes to politics.

I'm not saying its correct that she does and I don't think its correct of her to use The Duchess of Sussex title anywhere connected to politics, but the Queen, the British government and all the Queen's grey men can't tell an American not to be political. They can ask her nicely not to do this or that though. Its up to her to decide.

 

[Denville]

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).

What you say is true, which is why I can't regard her present activities, annoying and stupid as I find them as TERRIBLE behaviour. But if she does want to go further in the political sphere, I think she'd have to stop using her title... ie she could not run for office or make official speeches re politics as the Duchess of Sussex...and I think that the BRF and the US govt might have to make this clear to her.

 

[Denville]

I think the point I wonder most about is if they are so happy to lead "non-royal" lives why do they want the title still? Ultimately Meghan and Harry are free to talk about whatever the heck they like, its doing so while using a title given to Harry by the Queen for what was intended to be a senior working royal. To be honest if Meghan so wants to talk about US politics I don't see why she wouldn't be happy to do so without the female form of her British husbands UK title.



On a side not - of course the Queen and Parliament could stop Meghan from calling herself the Duchess of Sussex - they gave her the title and they can remove it, whether she is in California, the UK or Timbuktu. But again, no one is saying they want to, its about everyone looking out for protecting the Queen as Sovereign and the institution of monarchy which despite H&Ms personal issues with is a valued British institution. Of course everyone hopes H&M will respect that and exercise care for it while pursuing their own goals. IMO Meghan shouldn't use "The Duchess of Sussex" while speaking at increasingly partisan political things, I'm not fussed about legalities of it etc and if going down that route was the only way to stop her I wouldn't want to see it happen, I'd like her and Harry to decide that if it unsettling some people and putting the Queen in a potentially uncomfortable position the best thing to do would not be to use it, voluntarily, on this particular issue. Forget about legalities and over dramatising it, a little compromise and consideration goes a long way.

Somehow the more i see of Meghan the more I get the impression that she is NOT one for being flexible and compromising. If she had been she would have probably found a compromise in relation to her own wishes and the restrictions of being royal. I think that the queen had to "come down hard" when they left and make it very very clear to them that they couldn't use Royal or HRH in their business dealings.. and I think the 2 of them believed that they should be allowed ot do this, if they wished. Harry was clearly miffed at that speech at Invictus in January...
And the thing is that if they are going to make money they DO need to use teh titles. A speech by Harry Windsor isn't going to have much drawing appeal... or if they sell some kind of product, I think they need it to be "approved/sold by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" rather than by Harry MW and Meghan Marlkle. So from that point of view they CANT renounce the use of their Duke and Duchess titles..

 

[Denville]

Then again, I don't think Meghan's title really means anything to the average American. If you ask people on the street who The Duke is, they're going to tell you John Wayne. We also have our queens and princes and kings. Queen Latifah, Prince, The King of Pop and The King of Rock n' Roll.

To be honest, I don't think many Americans would really associate Meghan speaking out politically with the British government system, The Queen or the BRF all that much. Titles just don't mean anything much here at all. I've even been called queen. The Queen of Typos!!

Then why does she use it in these Zoom chats? WHy not just say" Im Meghan Markel and Im here to talk about this or that?"

 

[Queen Claude]

And the thing is that if they are going to make money they DO need to use teh titles. A speech by Harry Windsor isn't going to have much drawing appeal... or if they sell some kind of product, I think they need it to be "approved/sold by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" rather than by Harry MW and Meghan Marlkle. So from that point of view they CANT renounce the use of their Duke and Duchess titles..

I don't agree that they need their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles to make money. They are much better known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and can build brands around those two monikers. As to why they are using the titles, my theory is that, despite not too long ago telling people to "just call me Harry" or something like that, Harry's mindset is still entrenched in the British monarchy and their way of thinking and values, and to go back to referring to himself as simply Prince Harry (or Harry Mountbatten-Windsor or Harry Sussex) is a downgrade. In Meghan's case, I would have thought that she did not care, so maybe she is appeasing Harry, following his lead, or maybe, for whatever reasons, she is trying to rebrand herself as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex (yeah I know it is not the proper use of her title). But I stand by my original point, I don't think either need to be known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to make money.

 

[Denville]

I don't agree that they need their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles to make money. They are much better known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and can build brands around those two monikers. As to why they are using the titles, my theory is that, despite not too long ago telling people to "just call me Harry" or something like that, Harry's mindset is still entrenched in the British monarchy and their way of thinking and values, and to go back to referring to himself as simply Prince Harry (or Harry Mountbatten-Windsor or Harry Sussex) is a downgrade. In Meghan's case, I would have thought that she did not care, so maybe she is appeasing Harry, or maybe, for whatever reasons, she is trying to rebrand herself as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex (yeah I know it is not the proper use of her title). But I stand by my original point, I don't think either need to be known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to make money.

Then why DO they do it? They are living in the US now, its a republic.. Meghan seems to lean to the Left politically, (and Harry too).. and if she were to run for political office she would have to do so as Megh Markle or Megan M Windsor, not the Duchess of Sussex...
So if that's the way her thoughts are tending, why not start as they mean to go on and say "when the Crisis is over and we have a business/are making our living as public speakers (or whatever they go for), we will be known as Meg and Harry M Windsor, not Duke and Duchess of Sussex..."
But IMO they wont. Harry can still call himself Prince Harry but he hasn't got the HRH so the RF may have dissuaded himself form using his princely style although he still holds it... they want a brand that they can use for sale, and "Duke and Dss of Sussex" will attract attention..

 

[Somebody]

While I agree that it would be much better for Harry and Meghan not to use their British titles, I am not sure that I agree that they could do and say 'whatever they want' without a title. For example, let's imagine Mike Tindall (no title) becoming extremely active as a member of the Lib-Dems or UKIP. I don't think that would go over well; he might be a private person, he is also still a member of the BRF. Or, what if Autumn while still married to Peter would have campaigned for the Conservative Party calling people to vote 'for change' (so against the Liberals led by Trudeau); would that be totally fine? Or could the Duchess of Gloucester meddle in Danish politics as long as she is not using her title?

 

[Somebody]

I don't agree that they need their Duke and Duchess of Sussex titles to make money. They are much better known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle and can build brands around those two monikers. As to why they are using the titles, my theory is that, despite not too long ago telling people to "just call me Harry" or something like that, Harry's mindset is still entrenched in the British monarchy and their way of thinking and values, and to go back to referring to himself as simply Prince Harry (or Harry Mountbatten-Windsor or Harry Sussex) is a downgrade. In Meghan's case, I would have thought that she did not care, so maybe she is appeasing Harry, following his lead, or maybe, for whatever reasons, she is trying to rebrand herself as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex (yeah I know it is not the proper use of her title). But I stand by my original point, I don't think either need to be known as The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to make money.

If she didn't care, why would she use her title? She is rumored to have said 'we are still royalty' after the decision was made that they could not longer use the HRH, so, it seems the status that her title brings to her is important to her.

 

[AC21091968]

While I agree that it would be much better for Harry and Meghan not to use their British titles, I am not sure that I agree that they could do and say 'whatever they want' without a title. For example, let's imagine Mike Tindall (no title) becoming extremely active as a member of the Lib-Dems or UKIP. I don't think that would go over well; he might be a private person, he is also still a member of the BRF. Or, what if Autumn while still married to Peter would have campaigned for the Conservative Party calling people to vote 'for change' (so against the Liberals led by Trudeau); would that be totally fine? Or could the Duchess of Gloucester meddle in Danish politics as long as she is not using her title?

I agree with you and this applies to members born to the "junior branch" the Royal Family (i.e. Lady Helen Taylor or Flora Ogilvy). I would not be surprise if they are advised not to be publicly involved in politics or controversial topics. They probably can vote privately, but not publicly stating opinions.

The only UK politician that I can think of who has connection to the Royal Family is Ian Liddell-Grainger. He is the Conservative MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset. He is a great-great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria and great -grandson of Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone. He is very far from the throne, as he descend from Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany branch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Liddell-Grainger

I don't know at what point of the Royal Family's linage can the member hold public office without causing significant controversy (Like what happened to Meghan). I mean Boris Johnson is descended from George II and David Cameron descends from William IV

 

[Queen Claude]

Then why DO they do it? They are living in the US now, its a republic.. Meghan seems to lean to the Left politically, (and Harry too).. and if she were to run for political office she would have to do so as Megh Markle or Megan M Windsor, not the Duchess of Sussex...
So if that's the way her thoughts are tending, why not start as they mean to go on and say "when the Crisis is over and we have a business/are making our living as public speakers (or whatever they go for), we will be known as Meg and Harry M Windsor, not Duke and Duchess of Sussex..."
But IMO they wont. Harry can still call himself Prince Harry but he hasn't got the HRH so the RF may have dissuaded himself form using his princely style although he still holds it... they want a brand that they can use for sale, and "Duke and Dss of Sussex" will attract attention..

I have already given my thoughts on why they are doing it. The US being a republic does not stop Sarah, Duchess of York / Sarah Ferguson / Fergie from referring to herself as a Duchess when she shills in the U.S. The same goes for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Diana and their activities in the U.S. and other republics. I was going to say that Meghan involving herself in political matters is unchartered territory, but that is arguable.

If she didn't care, why would she use her title? She is rumored to have said 'we are still royalty' after the decision was made that they could not longer use the HRH, so, it seems the status that her title brings to her is important to her.

I thought she said Harry and Archie are royalty, but I may be misremembering. But also as you stated, it was a rumor so I don't know how much stock should be put in that assertion.

I already stated why I think she is still using it. When the Sussexes stepped back, it was stated that Harry and Meghan cannot use their HRH styling in their private / commercial activities but there were no restrictions on their using their dukedom titles. So as of this writing, they are using their dukedom titles because they can.

 

[Denville]

Re Sarah F..yes she is referred to as Duchess of York in the US, because.. that's what she has to sell.... She uses her title to get work and I believe she is introduced on talk shows as the Duchess of York or Sarah Duchess of York. If she just called herself Sarah Ferguson, I don't think that she would have gotten the jobs for Weight watchers etc.
The Sussexes seems ot have been annoyed at the decision by the queen that they could not be in and out of royal life and that if they chose a business career over royal life.. they were barred from using HRH... If the 2 of them had been told that they could not use the Sussex title in business/public life, I don't think they would have much chance of any kind of work being offered. Maybe someone would pay to hear "Harry Windsor" talk about his life once or twice, soon after their departure but not for long... And Meghan Markle would be the same..
Perhaps indeed Meghan doesn't care much bout the title, but she's aware, cynically that it gives her an edge, in trying to get work.. If she and H want to be public speakers or do things like narrating films and documentaries, I don't believe that they would have much chance at all as M Markle or Harry MW.. but for a time the D of Sussex or Duchess of Sussex will have novelty value...

 

[AC21091968]

Even a reader (Evelyne Eggins) of The Independent (Left-leaning with some Republicanism/anti-monarchy, similar to The Guardian) is criticising Meghan:

[...]
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...tion-vote-scotland-independence-a9684171.html

This isn't going well at all.

 

[Denville]

This seems to be a letter from a reader rather than a contribution from a journalist..
but yes of course Meghan looks like an out of work actress trying to get noticed and get some work... that's what she's doing. I don't know if Harry's all that keen on getting noticed but Meg's aware probably that their window of opportunity may well close if they dont keep their names before the public and the influential people in the US, while there is still a semi lockdown situation...

 

[Denville]

While I agree that it would be much better for Harry and Meghan not to use their British titles, I am not sure that I agree that they could do and say 'whatever they want' without a title. For example, let's imagine Mike Tindall (no title) becoming extremely active as a member of the Lib-Dems or UKIP. I don't think that would go over well; he might be a private person, he is also still a member of the BRF. Or, what if Autumn while still married to Peter would have campaigned for the Conservative Party calling people to vote 'for change' (so against the Liberals led by Trudeau); would that be totally fine? Or could the Duchess of Gloucester meddle in Danish politics as long as she is not using her title?

It would really depend on how it went if they did actually do this. If Birgitte and teh D of Glouceser retired to Denmark and she got involved in politics.. I suppose it would depend on how the Danish people took it? Same with Autumn Phillips.. if she moved to Canada and got involved with politics there, I suppose we'd have to see if the Canadians accepted it as a Can Citizen exercising her rights or if they would regard her as a membr of a foreign Royal family usng her positon to influence Canadian politics

 

[gerry]

It would really depend on how it went if they did actually do this. If Birgitte and teh D of Glouceser retired to Denmark and she got involved in politics.. I suppose it would depend on how the Danish people took it? Same with Autumn Phillips.. if she moved to Canada and got involved with politics there, I suppose we'd have to see if the Canadians accepted it as a Can Citizen exercising her rights or if they would regard her as a membr of a foreign Royal family usng her positon to influence Canadian politics

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, therefore the British Royal Family is not a foreign Royal family in Canada but rather our Canadian Royal family.

 

[ACO]

Interesting. Old article about HMQ encouraging people to vote.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/use-your-vote-queen-urges-2480341

So... color me a bit confused. Why the drama over Meghan (an American) saying the same to the people of her home country?

 

[Lori138]

Then why DO they do it? They are living in the US now, its a republic.. Meghan seems to lean to the Left politically, (and Harry too).. and if she were to run for political office she would have to do so as Megh Markle or Megan M Windsor, not the Duchess of Sussex...

I cannot see MM EVER running for public office. She does not take criticism well.

 

[Lilyflo]

Interesting. Old article about HMQ encouraging people to vote.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/use-your-vote-queen-urges-2480341

So... color me a bit confused. Why the drama over Meghan (an American) saying the same to the people of her home country?

Shocking - Her 'woke' Majesty was also promoting a gender equality agenda.

She praised the gender balance of the Assembly, with last month's election seeing 30 men and 30 women voted in.

"How proud you must all be that this new Assembly is the first legislative body in Europe, perhaps in the world, to have equal numbers of women and men among its members," she said.

 

[Pranter]

I have found it amusing when ppl go thru all the pearl clutching about Meghan did X only to find other senior Royals had already done it.


LaRae

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Interesting. Old article about HMQ encouraging people to vote.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/use-your-vote-queen-urges-2480341

So... color me a bit confused. Why the drama over Meghan (an American) saying the same to the people of her home country?

The Queen: *on her own *telling people to vote

Meghan: *surrounded by leaders in one political party *telling people to vote *telling people they deserve "change," speaking in the context of a two-party system with an incumbent running

A stretch to say these are close to the same. In context, it is very clear that Meghan is endorsing a particular party.

 

[Dalriada]

Let’s not forget Meghan has bad form straying into politics like her very first overseas tour which was just after the referendum in Ireland:


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...on-at-garden-party_n_5b474f1ee4b0bc69a7847bfb

 

[Somebody]

Interesting. Old article about HMQ encouraging people to vote.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/use-your-vote-queen-urges-2480341

So... color me a bit confused. Why the drama over Meghan (an American) saying the same to the people of her home country?

Because she isn't 'just in general' encouraging people to vote; nor is she their head of state who may encourage people to take part in their civic duties so the democratic institutions may flourish - all of this said AFTER the turn out at the elections was low.

Instead, in the midst of election season she is clearly advocating to vote for one party - calling on people to vote because 'we all know what's at stake... I know it' ... that we need and deserve change. And in doing so, using the platform she has because she married a British prince.

So, two completely incomparable situations.

 

[Lilyflo]

Let’s not forget Meghan has bad form straying into politics like her very first overseas tour which was just after the referendum in Ireland:


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...on-at-garden-party_n_5b474f1ee4b0bc69a7847bfb

So someone Meghan talked to said she "seemed pleased" with the result, which isn't the same as straying into politics is it. If you think it is, what's your view of our then Prime Minister saying that The Queen "purred" down the phone when told the result of the Scottish independence referendum?

 

[ACO]

The goalposts keep moving. So first it was wrong to talk about voting and politics but now it’s not as long as it’s generic? Meghan didn’t say one name. She said vote.