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

[Somebody]

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?

That the prime minister shouldn't express his interpretation about what happens in his phone calls with the queen.

 

[Mbruno]

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?

If I understand it correctly, that was a speech the Queen made to the National Assembly of Wales. So she was probably reflecting the view of the Welsh government who must have advised her to say that. Or her Secretary of State for Wales in London (a UK government minister) did it.


In any case, a completely different situation from Meghan's.


EDIT: Reading it more carefully, apparently it was the state opening of the Assembly.

 

[tommy100]

The difference is the Queen wasn't speaking in a party political way and is always clear to ensure she doesn't do that. My issue is not with Meghan talking about voting but talking about politics with a clear leaning to one side and doing so as "The Duchess of Sussex". I guess the reason the Queen "can get away with it" is because she has never said anything to let on what her party political opinion may be, Meghan was openly a Democrat before marrying into the RF and her most recent comments appear to make it clear this is still her view. She is not making these comments as "Meghan Markle -actress" but as "The Duchess of Sussex" which leads some to believe it is as "The Duchess of Sussex - member of the British RF" and that is a problem.

 

[Durham]

There’s a few clues in this article that should make the context here very clear.

“First Minister Rhodri Morgan, who it has been revealed regularly briefs Prince Charles on Assembly matters, said the royal visit would help focus attention on the Assembly.”

The Queen - "I share your concerns that we must encourage all our people to exercise their right to vote. This is a real challenge now before us all."

She’s fulfilling her duties as a constitutional monarch at the formal opening of one of the British devolved assemblies by reading a speech which has the direct input of the Welsh Government. The message is theirs.

The politicians are disappointed that yet again voter turn out was low for the Cardiff Assembly. The context is a Welsh population that does not seem as enthusiastic for devolution as the Scots. The referendum to establish the Welsh Assembly barely passed in the first place & Welsh voters have not engaged with self-government to anywhere near the same extent as the Scottish people have.

My goodness this is hard work sometimes.

 

[Denville]

That the prime minister shouldn't express his interpretation about what happens in his phone calls with the queen.

Quite right. The queen may express opinions in private to her PM and the PM should not ever share tehm with the public.

 

[Denville]

The difference is the Queen wasn't speaking in a party political way and is always clear to ensure she doesn't do that. My issue is not with Meghan talking about voting but talking about politics with a clear leaning to one side and doing so as "The Duchess of Sussex". I guess the reason the Queen "can get away with it" is because she has never said anything to let on what her party political opinion may be, Meghan was openly a Democrat before marrying into the RF and her most recent comments appear to make it clear this is still her view. She is not making these comments as "Meghan Markle -actress" but as "The Duchess of Sussex" which leads some to believe it is as "The Duchess of Sussex - member of the British RF" and that is a problem.

The queen is not "getting away with it", she was making a speech at the behest of her Government which is the case with nearly all her speeches, except her Christmas broadcast.

 

[Heavs]

It's the same as the State Opening of Parliament just with the Welsh Assembly. She doesn't write the speech and has no input in it. She the mouth piece and can and has said things that she might well disagree with "My government will do X, my government believes y, they claim Z will make them popular". It was the Welsh government attempting to get people interested and invested in it. Which you can tell because apart from everything else the Queen very rarely talks statistics or demographics in her Christmas (or recent COVID) broadcasts.

It should also be noted that the Queen's very, very careful and neutral neutral remarks about IndyRef were interpreted by almost everyone to mean she opposed Scottish Independence and the SNP were vocally furious about it and called it undemocratic meddling - you'd think she was Charles I. There was also a huge row over the alleged content of the phone call between DC and HM, with the Palace hitting back about it. Because the Queen was supposed to be neutral.

 

[AC21091968]

It's the same as the State Opening of Parliament just with the Welsh Assembly. She doesn't write the speech and has no input in it. She the mouth piece and can and has said things that she might well disagree with "My government will do X, my government believes y, they claim Z will make them popular". It was the Welsh government attempting to get people interested and invested in it. Which you can tell because apart from everything else the Queen very rarely talks statistics or demographics in her Christmas (or recent COVID) broadcasts.

It should also be noted that the Queen's very, very careful and neutral neutral remarks about IndyRef were interpreted by almost everyone to mean she opposed Scottish Independence and the SNP were vocally furious about it and called it undemocratic meddling - you'd think she was Charles I. There was also a huge row over the alleged content of the phone call between DC and HM, with the Palace hitting back about it. Because the Queen was supposed to be neutral.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the diplomatic speeches made by Senior Royal Family members were written by the Foreign offices, Prime Ministers or Ministers. In terms of speeches made in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me if the speech was edited by their private secretaries. I think the bottom line is if the talk was done on the behalf of the Prime Minister or other public offices, there shouldn't be any controversy.

In regards to the Queen's phone call, I do think now the Government's secretary states or other Privy Counsellor are very careful not to leak the conversation with the Royal Family. For example, the Leader of the House of Commons have repeatedly said "The conversation inside the Privy Counsel is strictly confidential", despite journalists pushing for answers.

 

[altagrace]

Ok Meghan could use the name Markle when she makes interventions but frankly I don’t think that would satisfy her detractors. Some would even accuse her of not appreciating the title.

 

[Osipi]

At this point, I'm of the mind to just let it be. If the BRF has a problem with Meghan and politics, they'll handle it without us knowing about it. No matter how much Meghan espouses on voting or politics, whether she uses Meghan Markle, The Duchess of Sussex or "Nutmeg", I just choose not to listen. For all I care, she could be backing Felix the Cat for president and declaring "This country *needs* a magic bag o' tricks!" and it'd go in one ear and out the other.

Right now, getting my water restored (pipe burst down the hill and they're fixing it) is a far more pressing concern. I'm hungry and I need water to cook.

 

[poppy7]

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the diplomatic speeches made by Senior Royal Family members were written by the Foreign offices, Prime Ministers or Ministers. In terms of speeches made in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me if the speech was edited by their private secretaries. I think the bottom line is if the talk was done on the behalf of the Prime Minister or other public offices, there shouldn't be any controversy.

In regards to the Queen's phone call, I do think now the Government's secretary states or other Privy Counsellor are very careful not to leak the conversation with the Royal Family. For example, the Leader of the House of Commons have repeatedly said "The conversation inside the Privy Counsel is strictly confidential", despite journalists pushing for answers.

Replace that with all. They don't write their own speeches. Politicians don't write their own speeches. They have people for that. It surprises me sometimes how much credit is given to people. These are highly important matters. People who are qualified write the speeches. They may, on occasion, have imput.

 

[caethi]

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.

The goalposts haven't moved. The Queen makes speeches that are approved and/or written by the government. That is completely different than Meghan's actions. That being said, I don't think Meghan's actions are a big deal in their current context. I think she is both naieve and headstrong, but as far as I am concerned she can say what she likes. She surely doesn't care and I suspect that the BRF establishment has washed their hands of any fallout, or at least they should. She's a big girl, it's Harry who will have to deal with it, and they are on the other side of the pond.

 

[tommy100]

I'll just leave this here and say IMO it shows clearly there is some recognition that there is unhappiness about all the talk of politics if this has come from Harry & Meghan's camp

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...rry-will-not-get-involved-us-voting-campaign/

The Duke of Sussex will not join his wife in campaigning on US election voting, the Telegraph has learned, amid concern over the Royal Family becoming too closely embroiled in politics.

The Duke, who unlike his wife cannot vote in America, will not contribute publicly to her latest mission to urge her fellow citizens to vote, out of respect for his family’s position on the global stage.

***

The source said the Duke, who cannot vote in the US, would not be speaking on current American politics, with “family convention” making it “not appropriate for him”.

The decision will no doubt prove welcome reassurance for Buckingham Palace, with the Sussexes’ political activities a potential diplomatic minefield.

 

[Osipi]

The goalposts haven't moved. The Queen makes speeches that are approved and/or written by the government. That is completely different than Meghan's actions. That being said, I don't think Meghan's actions are a big deal in their current context. I think she is both naieve and headstrong, but as far as I am concerned she can say what she likes. She surely doesn't care and I suspect that the BRF establishment has washed their hands of any fallout, or at least they should. She's a big girl, it's Harry who will have to deal with it, and they are on the other side of the pond.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Meghan does not work for the BRF's family "Firm" any longer. She does not, in any way, represent HM, The Queen or the British government in any shape or form. She even isn't a UK citizen. The Queen and the British government *can't* and *doesn't have the right* to enforce any kind of restrictions or deem what an American citizen can or cannot do in her own country. Meghan could actively go out and campaign full blast for Joe Biden and no one can blink an eyelash. Its her right as a citizen of the United States of America.

People can clutch pearls all they want over the use of her title through marriage but its not going to amount to a hill of beans. The bottom line is that Meghan has absolutely no allegiance, duty or responsibility to the UK, The Queen or the British government at all at this time. She may be seemingly giving the Bronx cheer to the BRF but that reflects on her and her alone but she is well within her rights to be as political as she wants to be.

I don't see things changing. Not one little bit at this time.

[/I]

THIS is what matters.

 

[tommy100]

Well I'd say if thats how Meghan thinks then its probably the reason why she couldn't hack it in the BRF. If nothing else I think its just respectful to the Queen as her grandmother-in-law not to in anyway put her in an awkward position.

The Queen and her staff can ask Meghan not to talk politics and Meghan can, just as Osipi seems to, flick the Vs back at them and stamp her foot and say "But I'm American". If she does go down that route it wouldn't surprise me if she doesn't find herself without the Duchess title as that is a British title given to her as part of the British RF and if she decides not to be respectful to the Queen and Crown it could be taken off her. It would make things a lot clearer if she stopped using "Duchess of Sussex" for these talks/appearances on politics.

Its attitudes like that above that make this forum miserable for everyone and why once again I'm out of here.

 

[Osipi]

Don't get me wrong here. I think its deplorable that Meghan uses her British title as a means of influence in no matter what she says and does. I am also reminded of the "assurance" that both Harry and Meghan made when they exited working for the "Firm" that they would uphold the values that the Queen holds dear. Meghan may have all the right in the world to do whatever she deems she wants to do but she's also going to prove or disprove her own character by the moves she makes.

I just really hope that all this isn't a bone of dissension between Harry and Meghan themselves. This could very well be a testing point of Harry's loyalty and respect for his family against his wife's wishes.

 

[KellyAtLast]

Then she should stop using duchess of Sussex at these talks and just go by Mountbatten Windsor. That is why ppl are reacting because she is suppose to be a “private” person making these comments yet she’s using her British title to get political. If she started with Mountbatten Windsor there would be less talk. She needs to pick a damn side and stay there.

 

[Pranter]

While I don't think 99 percent of Americans care (or even know) that she has a title I do think she should not use her title(s) in conjunction with any campaigning where she is openly supporting X candidate.

Perhaps we will see a change to this if she actually endorses anyone.


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Meghan does not work for the BRF's family "Firm" any longer. She does not, in any way, represent HM, The Queen or the British government in any shape or form. She even isn't a UK citizen. The Queen and the British government *can't* and *doesn't have the right* to enforce any kind of restrictions or deem what an American citizen can or cannot do in her own country. Meghan could actively go out and campaign full blast for Joe Biden and no one can blink an eyelash. Its her right as a citizen of the United States of America.

I have a slightly different view. I agree that Meghan has the right as a US citizen to speak on political issues or even openly support a candidate, but I don't think she has the right to drag the British Royal Family into her political campaigns by carrying them out under a title that is associated with the House of Windsor.

Putting it in other way, if Meghan were still in the UK and a full-time working royal, would she be making comments on US politics? As matter of fact, would she even vote in the US elections in November? I doubt the Palace would sanction that, regardless of Meghan's citizenship status. There are things one must give up upon marrying into any European RF. Meghan should understand that too and, if she doesn't want that life at all, she should give up all her titles and revert to being a private person. Then she can do whatever she wants.

 

[Kopper]

If I understand it correctly, that was a speech the Queen made to the National Assembly of Wales. So she was probably reflecting the view of the Welsh government who must have advised her to say that. Or her Secretary of State for Wales in London (a UK government minister) did it.


In any case, a completely different situation from Meghan's.


EDIT: Reading it more carefully, apparently it was the state opening of the Assembly.

As a former government and political speechwriter in Canada, can confirm that at an opening of Parliament or Assembly the Queen (or her representative here in Canada) would be delivering a speech that reflects the priorities of the government of the day. It is a speech delivered as Head of State and not as a private citizen reflecting her own views.

 

[Helen.CH]

But did she use her title? Or was she addressed "good morning Meghan Duchess...." ?
I am sick of that Lady and try not to see too much of her and hope she gets out if blogs, news.... if more people ignored her this would work, because clicks count and pay out.

Of course she should maybe emphasise she speaks as a private person, but then in every interview the distinction has to be mentioned and attracts attention. I think there is no way out.

 

[Lilyflo]

I know that when HMQ says "I share your concerns that we must encourage all our people to exercise their right to vote" she's doing so with the input/approval of the government, which to me makes it doubly OK for Meghan to say something similar. If the government has no objections to our monarch encouraging people to vote, they won't have a problem with the wife of the 6th in line doing it. Especially if she's doing it in another country of which she is a citizen and where she now lives as a non-working member of the family.

However, I've said previously that I think she's unwise to use her Duchess of Sussex title to do anything political or for personal gain because it smacks of exploiting the title to chase celebrity.

 

[Denville]

I know that when HMQ says "I share your concerns that we must encourage all our people to exercise their right to vote" she's doing so with the input/approval of the government, which to me makes it doubly OK for Meghan to say something similar. If the government has no objections to our monarch encouraging people to vote, they won't have a problem with the wife of the 6th in line doing it. Especially if she's doing it in another country of which she is a citizen and where she now lives as a non-working member of the family.

However, I've said previously that I think she's unwise to use her Duchess of Sussex title to do anything political or for personal gain because it smacks of exploiting the title to chase celebrity.

THe queen is doing it at teh behest of the Government, it is part of her role as Queen to promote the policies of her government. Meghan is doing it as a private individual.. and seems to be promoting one party at the expenses of another... A massive difference.

 

[Jacknch]

Time to move please, we've been discussing the issue for days now and the conversation is going round in circles.

 

[Somebody]

In her review of Finding Freedom (as discussed in the appropriate topic) Marlene Koenig mentions that Harry and Meghan were offered to go part-time (and earn some money on the side) following the Luce Guidelines - but they clearly rejected that offer or they would have been part-time nowadays. Can anyone enlighten me on what those guidelines would entail?

 

[poppy7]

In her review of Finding Freedom (as discussed in the appropriate topic) Marlene Koenig mentions that Harry and Meghan were offered to go part-time (and earn some money on the side) following the Luce Guidelines - but they clearly rejected that offer or they would have been part-time nowadays. Can anyone enlighten me on what those guidelines would entail?

You can find the online. It would basically mean having everything checked by the lord Chamberlain. It wasn't what they wanted and I didn't know they had been offered them.

 

[Somebody]

You can find the online. It would basically mean having everything checked by the lord Chamberlain. It wasn't what they wanted and I didn't know they had been offered them.

Thanks for the summary. Can you provide a link to the actual Guidelines? I looked for it but couldn't find it.

 

[Pranter]

Thanks for the summary. Can you provide a link to the actual Guidelines? I looked for it but couldn't find it.

The first time I ever heard it was today when I clicked the link above for the book review.



LaRae

 

[Somebody]

After searching a little longer, I found some articles on the Luce Guidelines:
Shropshirestar (2020)
Telegraph (2001)
BBC (2001)

 

[Denville]

So if they were offered this how come they were apparently told that they coudl not be half in and half out?