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

[evolvingdoors]

Meghan rang Trin to congratulate her on the organising of fundraising activities by a group of Sussex supporters, nothing more, nothing less. The group raised thousands of dollars for charities to help children in the Coronavirus crisis and girls and young women in educational initiatives in Africa among other endeavours in the past months.

Meghan herself has said nothing publicly about any other members of the RF. And all over the Internet, let's not forget, there are vile Tumblr and Twitter sites pouring out poison about Meghan and Harry every day of the week. Nothing is said about the people who write terrible things on these sites.

The NYP article is an opinion piece, by one woman journalist, not an editorial.

And if republican John Humphrys had objections to interviewing Harry on radio when Harry was a guest editor then he should have said so openly at the time, not saved his gibes for over three years while writing in a paper owned by a newspaper group being sued by the Sussexes now. He also said unflattering things about other royals in this article, as well.

Is there anything this couple will do that will turn you off of them?
...

No one has said anything about there not being this similar behavior from non Sussex fans. The point is: Meghan reached out to this woman and thus the squad Multiple times. Harry has spoken about social media toxicity and attacking people just last week.
There is no way they and their people did not know how toxic the Sussex squad are.



At no point did i say the NYPost article was an editorial.

 

[Curryong]

I like Harry and Meghan. I'm a longterm follower of Harry's since he was 19 and have always support(ed) his charities and endeavours. You do not like either Harry or Meghan and never have as shown by your posts here.

This is an opinion based forum and I am entitled to my views as you are entitled to yours. My opinion of the couple is unlikely to change and I guess it is the same for you.

 

[Betsypaige]

Yup they knew exactly what those accounts were saying. Even last year one of their employees were following one of the hate accounts. They thought they were getting a stealth attack in (much like "assisting" in Finding Freedom, or passing Lainey that blind in 2017), but subtlety is a very weak attribute of theirs, humility too.

It's no surprise they're estranged from so many people, and I imagine that list will grow as their antics grow.

Of course, they’re always reading comments on social media. I’ll bet they search themselves to see what people are saying....I didn’t know that about one of their employees; no surprise, they take their cues from their bosses..

I agree - I mean, people are human. As soon as the people they “care” about and who they are close to make a mistake or do something they don’t like or say something they don’t like, it’s off with their heads. One day they may find themselves alone.

Is there anything this couple will do that will turn you off of them?
...

No one has said anything about there not being this similar behavior from non Sussex fans. The point is: Meghan reached out to this woman and thus the squad Multiple times. Harry has spoken about social media toxicity and attacking people just last week.
There is no way they and their people did not know how toxic the Sussex squad are.



At no point did i say the NYPost article was an editorial.

Bravo! Who cares if Meghan hasn’t said anything about the BRF? She’s not going to...she can’t, for obvious reasons. So, instead of making comments directly, she will make her feelings known in other ways. When you “like” a comment, you are as good as saying you believe in that.

Who cares what good this woman and her group have done? They are vile. I find it hard to believe that M couldn’t find any other group or organization that is as or more charitable, that also is not reprehensible.

 

[yukari]

I remember I posted my concern about them phoning this Sussexsquad account here and I was accused of spreading hate.

Let's talk about a hypothetical situation At some point if any royal member recieved large donation for their charity (and naturally they would thank him) from someone who happen to do a dirty/questionable business, how it would look for the said royal? Say, the said royal claims ignorant of what that person did for his business hence not responsible for it or from where the money came from. Bottom line, it's money for charity, doesn't matter where it came from.

When the above scenario happen, we may have Andrew-Eipstein 2.0 saga.

 

[JessRulz]

Alright, it seems like we need another warning as Zonk's on the previous page was completely ignored:

It is time to MOVE ON from the discussion of finances, and the endless bickering of how the couple are a) financed, b) the nuance of "financial independence", and c) how they paid for their new home. Everyone's opinions on the matter have been made well, WELL known over the past eight months.

Posts which ignored the previous moderator note on the matter have been removed. Further posts on the matter will also be removed, with warnings sent to those poster who continually ignore moderator direction.

I have also removed/edited several posts which attacked the right of opinion of other posters.

Several empty posts have also been deleted.

 

[Mbruno]

The climate sounds a lot like the Perth area. I've not been to California but I've been to WA a few times & that is a lot dryer & less green than the NSW coast for instance.

That is probably correct. Both Western Australia and the coastal areas of California have a similar Mediterranean climate with mild and wet winters and hot, dry summers (Csa). If you move further north of LA, I mean, towards San Francisco and beyond, you still get a mild and possiby more rainy winter, but with cooler summers (maybe like Cape Town ?).


Anyway, many regions in the world between 30 and 40 degrees of latitude have that type of climate (Western and Southern Australia, California, the Western Cape, same parts of central Chile, etc.). Those are all regions that are excellent to grow non-tropical fruit (like apples and pears) and especially wine-quality grapes.


The coast of NSW on the other hand has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa), which is more like the southeastern United States, or Buenos Aires in Argentina, or maybe Durban in South Africa.


PS: I am also glad that Harry will have a chance to perfect his surfing skills in Santa Barbara (far better than in LA), but he will have to step up his game.

 

[Curryong]

The charities that this woman and supporters raised money for were those in the general area of those that Meghan and Harry have expressed interest in the past ie forestry/new tree plantings, women and girls' educational opportunities in Africa for instance and were raised for milestones like Archie's birthday and the couple's second anniversary.

No charity that Harry or Meghan are patrons of or are 'theirs' in any way shape or form was involved.

That is very very different from Andrew's charities or patronages like Pitch@Palace or how he used his position as 'trade envoy'.

 

[gerry]

"Daily Mail" is reporting that they have obtained a copy of the property deed for "Chateau at Riven Rock" and that it shows that the trust set up by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex for the purchase - "Residential Real Estate Trust" - wast set up on May 15th.


French magazine "Gala" has several different photos of the property in their article -

https://photo.gala.fr/photos-meghan...lle-propriete-a-montecito-en-californie-e9dta


There are a lot of articles about this property, and Montecito in general, out now - maybe for weekend readers.

A lot of negativity - about neighbours, about wildfires and mudslides, no footpaths, exclusivity, lack of culture, this area taking too much water, the defense fund set up by people owning property there to keep their way of life, fights for views and tree lines, about every aspect really.

A lot of it sounds very like the same things that William and Kate find so attractive about Mustique - low commercial activity, dirt roads and nature, wealthy people getting on with their own lives and being private around other very wealthy people.

It all sounds wonderful to me though, a really wonderful place.

Agree Sun Lion and thanks so much for helping out the rest of us dream of Riven Rock! Don't think I would want to dust all those rooms though....plus the thought of cleaning 16 bathrooms is somewhat daunting.

 

[Curryong]

Sixteen bathrooms seems excessive. However, unless you had loads of guests at the one time just an occasional vacuum and dust would be needed and the rest of the time they would be just unused.

Santa Barbara and Montecito in particular looks just heavenly. Mountains, hiking trails, beach, privacy to do your own thing. What more could you want!

 

[caethi]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ne...kCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Meghan has shared more of her feelings about race relations in the US, but just as significantly commented once again about not being able to “use her voice” ... “of late”. This is at least the second time she has emphasized this in an interview. This is possibly a swipe at the Royal establishment or even the family. In any case, I find the fact that a woman who is so privileged complains that she wasn’t able to use her “voice” to be cringeworthy. It’s pretty clear why she didn’t want to stay in the UK...she didn’t think she had a “voice”. Well, you can take that to mean many things. I believe that women’s voices should be heard, even shouted—but compared to most women in the world she had plenty of opportunity to be heard, she had an amazing platform. I guess she couldn’t compromise, or adapt, and Harry was perhaps ready to fly the coop so they both left to, I guess, find their “voices.” Said Meghan: “And being part of using my voice in a way that I haven’t been able to of late. So, yeah, it’s good to be home.”

The more I hear of this nonsense, the more I find it difficult to see Meghan as anything but incredibly self-centred. It’s sad, because she and Harry could have been amazing BRF members, had they been able to make the commitment.

 

[crm2317]

I feel like when Meghan speaks she comes across as informed and intelligent with a valid point of view. However when she says she is looking forward to using her voice which she hasn’t been able to do of late I then find myself thinking “There it is, the little teenage girl style sly remark”. She then just puts me off liking her!

I haven’t said much on the Sussex threads before, people clearly feel very impassioned about them for better or worse and I just didn’t feel as strongly.
However the more I see about them; the book, online interviews, phone calls to fundraisers, the more I find they just rub me up the wrong way so to speak.
They had a real platform for good when in the UK, a visibility that people dream of to make change for the good! But Harry had always held a bitterness towards the media and also to the suits within the institution who he saw as controlling. Then along came Meghan with her American sense of freedom, self appreciation and right to speak. And so the perfect storm of frustration was able to come to be.
If only they had tried to work things out in the UK in private and hadn’t just announced on the internet in the way they did. A happy medium could have been found. But now they are off to this new life, IMO with less of a “voice” and we all get to watch as they appear to alienate the people they seemed to once hold dear. I do believe everyone should have the right to feel fulfilled and find their purpose, but what does it say about someone when they seek this with disregard for the feelings of others?
With remarks such as the one above from Meghan, I believe they alienate themselves further from Harry’s family. Visiting would certainly be awkward with everything that has come out recently in the book as well as implied comments from the couple themselves.

Sorry for this long winded post!

 

[VictoriaB]

I feel like when Meghan speaks she comes across as informed and intelligent with a valid point of view. However when she says she is looking forward to using her voice which she hasn’t been able to do of late I then find myself thinking “There it is, the little teenage girl style sly remark”. She then just puts me off liking her!

I’m probably being unfair to Meghan but I agree it just rubs me up the wrong way.

Up front I say that Black Lives Matters is important and I totally support what their aims are.

Meghans comments in this interview make me really feel that as a modestly talented actress in a moderately successful series she really wanted a “voice”. She had a lot to say but didn’t have the platform. She saw the British Royal Family as her platform. Do I doubt she was in love with Harry, I really don’t know. I really feel she was in love with the idea that the BRF would giver her the platform she longed for. She’s now going to milk it for all it’s worth.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Sorry for writing in this thread, but I didn't find a better one to what is on my mind.


I never really got it why Meghan is identified as 'black' as in my swiss-eyed view, she is not (to me she is a 'typical' american, with traces from here and there). So today I stumbled over that article:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


which explained to me the US concept of 'race'. Our European concept of race is quite diffrent... but be it as it may; I thought this could be interessting also to other non US people to get a better understanding.


My worldview dividing lines go along education and background (not in the british class sense) and the way people choose to live and spend their time (e.g. readers of 'good' literature against non readers; people interested in cultur, art, history against people who are only 'consuming').



I'm not saying this is any better, just illustrating, where I come from, and how alien the american concept seems to me.

 

[evolvingdoors]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ne...kCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Meghan has shared more of her feelings about race relations in the US, but just as significantly commented once again about not being able to “use her voice” ... “of late”. This is at least the second time she has emphasized this in an interview. This is possibly a swipe at the Royal establishment or even the family. In any case, I find the fact that a woman who is so privileged complains that she wasn’t able to use her “voice” to be cringeworthy. It’s pretty clear why she didn’t want to stay in the UK...she didn’t think she had a “voice”. Well, you can take that to mean many things. I believe that women’s voices should be heard, even shouted—but compared to most women in the world she had plenty of opportunity to be heard, she had an amazing platform. I guess she couldn’t compromise, or adapt, and Harry was perhaps ready to fly the coop so they both left to, I guess, find their “voices.” Said Meghan: “And being part of using my voice in a way that I haven’t been able to of late. So, yeah, it’s good to be home.”

The more I hear of this nonsense, the more I find it difficult to see Meghan as anything but incredibly self-centred. It’s sad, because she and Harry could have been amazing BRF members, had they been able to make the commitment.

I did not watch the interview, but from what I did read two things have been discussed which keeps hammering the fact of Meghan tone deafness and pure spoiled ness:

1) this slight at “not having a voice”... again, as been said this comes across as middle school teenager (or younger) not able to take responsibility for her decisions and actions. She is a grown up woman, she agreed to marry into this institution, it was her job to make sure she knew what she was getting herself into!

2) bringing up Harry (who is the epitome of white privilege) not being able to vote when talking about vote suppression in the US... she talks about this incredibly important topic, but brings her husband in.. there could have been so many other examples she could have used.

I don’t think Meghan is very bright or has much common sense, she tries to pretends to be, but than she talks or writes an essay and it is obvious that she is just not incredibly smart and knowledgeable, so to cover it up she uses a lot of words and quotes and and unrelated connections all jumbled up. I called is “bs-ing” my way through an essay when I was in college. I grew out of it, I hope.

 

[Heavs]

I did not watch the interview, but from what I did read two things have been discussed which keeps hammering the fact of Meghan tone deafness and pure spoiled ness:

1) this slight at “not having a voice”... again, as been said this comes across as middle school teenager (or younger) not able to take responsibility for her decisions and actions. She is a grown up woman, she agreed to marry into this institution, it was her job to make sure she knew what she was getting herself into!

2) bringing up Harry (who is the epitome of white privilege) not being able to vote when talking about vote suppression in the US... she talks about this incredibly important topic, but brings her husband in.. there could have been so many other examples she could have used.

I don’t think Meghan is very bright or has much common sense, she tries to pretends to be, but than she talks or writes an essay and it is obvious that she is just not incredibly smart and knowledgeable, so to cover it up she uses a lot of words and quotes and and unrelated connections all jumbled up. I called is “bs-ing” my way through an essay when I was in college. I grew out of it, I hope.

What? Her not you.

This is another "complaining about how they feel bad whilst standing in South Africa next to some of the poorest people on the planet" moment.

She has a voice, she's using it. She also had one last year and the year before with her projects and charities and absolutely no one was saying she couldn't have her private political views and support them either. It's just that she had some restrictions on what she could publicly say which she voluntarily chose to abide by. She was not systematically being disenfranchised, disadvantaged or locked up in prison for pro democracy protests and she gets to say this sitting on one of the most exclusive communities in the US. It does come across as very tone deaf.

Hell the only reason people are particularly interested in what she has to say now is because of the BFR the institution which "silenced" her.

 

[RandyDrx]

If Meghan was really bothered about not being able to "use her voice", why did she agreed to marry into an institution that is obviously restrictive and decidedly a complete opposite to her personality in the first place?

 

[Lilyflo]

So here's the quote about Meghan's 'voice':

From my standpoint, it’s not new to see this undercurrent of racism and certainly unconscious bias, but I think to see the changes that are being made right now is really — it’s something I look forward to being a part of. And being part of using my voice in a way that I haven’t been able to of late. So, yeah, it’s good to be home.

She's not saying she hasn't had a voice or been able to use her voice as a working HRH, she's emphasising that she's not been able to use her voice in this way, by which I assume she means politically. I can understand how that must feel liberating, particularly for someone who had that freedom curtailed so no wonder she feels it's good to be home.

 

[RandyDrx]

So here's the quote about Meghan's 'voice':


She's not saying she hasn't had a voice or been able to use her voice as a working HRH, she's emphasising that she's not been able to use her voice in this way, by which I assume she means politically. I can understand how that must feel liberating, particularly for someone who had that freedom curtailed so no wonder she feels it's good to be home.

If that's the case, then perhaps she shouldn't marry into the BRF in the first place.

 

[Denville]

So here's the quote about Meghan's 'voice':


She's not saying she hasn't had a voice or been able to use her voice as a working HRH, she's emphasising that she's not been able to use her voice in this way, by which I assume she means politically. I can understand how that must feel liberating, particularly for someone who had that freedom curtailed so no wonder she feels it's good to be home.

But it is elementary Royal life 101 that you cant "use your voice" politically.. Even if she knows nothing about royal life she must have picked up THIS fact. and if you marry a British Prince and undertake a role as a Duchess, then yo're kind of commited to living mainly in teh UK.

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps Meghan had a talk with her father in law about venturing into political issues and challenging established ways of thinking.

 

[Denville]

Perhaps Meghan had a talk with her father in law about venturing into political issues and challenging established ways of thinking.

why woudl she do that? Charles is aware of how much flak he has gotten for straying into politics....

 

[Betsypaige]

I did not watch the interview, but from what I did read two things have been discussed which keeps hammering the fact of Meghan tone deafness and pure spoiled ness:

1) this slight at “not having a voice”... again, as been said this comes across as middle school teenager (or younger) not able to take responsibility for her decisions and actions. She is a grown up woman, she agreed to marry into this institution, it was her job to make sure she knew what she was getting herself into!

2) bringing up Harry (who is the epitome of white privilege) not being able to vote when talking about vote suppression in the US... she talks about this incredibly important topic, but brings her husband in.. there could have been so many other examples she could have used.

I don’t think Meghan is very bright or has much common sense, she tries to pretends to be, but than she talks or writes an essay and it is obvious that she is just not incredibly smart and knowledgeable, so to cover it up she uses a lot of words and quotes and and unrelated connections all jumbled up. I called is “bs-ing” my way through an essay when I was in college. I grew out of it, I hope.

I didn’t see it, either, but

1) it’s just another not-so subtle jab at the BRF for stifling her. This is another example of how she - and Harry- wanted to be half in/half out; she wanted all the privilege of being Royal, but none of the restrictions.

2) what? For one thing, aside from Harry being among the most privileged people in the world, he’s NOT a US citizen, so he doesn’t get to vote. That’s not voter suppression. Is M going to start a petition for non-citizens to vote? Does she want to amend the Constitution ? If she were up on her history, she could have spoken about Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.. Good lord...this just proves to me that M is just latching onto issues that far more eloquent and genuinely interested people have spoken about.

I couldn’t agree more with your last point

 

[Denville]

I didn’t see it, either, but

1) it’s just another not-so subtle jab at the BRF for stifling her. This is another example of how she - and Harry- wanted to be half in/half out; she wanted all the privilege of being Royal, but none of the restrictions.

2) what? For one thing, aside from Harry being among the most privileged people in the world, he’s NOT a US citizen, so he doesn’t get to vote. That’s not voter suppression. Is M going to start a petition for non-citizens to vote? Does she want to amend the Constitution ? If she were up on her history, she could have spoken about Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.. Good lord...this just proves to me that M is just latching onto issues that far more eloquent and genuinely interested people have spoken about.

I couldn’t agree more with your last point

Is this for real? She's saying that Harry can't vote in the US is the same as African Americans being denied the vote by chicanery .
I don't think she's that smart but really???

 

[Heavs]

I didn’t see it, either, but

1) it’s just another not-so subtle jab at the BRF for stifling her. This is another example of how she - and Harry- wanted to be half in/half out; she wanted all the privilege of being Royal, but none of the restrictions.

2) what? For one thing, aside from Harry being among the most privileged people in the world, he’s NOT a US citizen, so he doesn’t get to vote. That’s not voter suppression. Is M going to start a petition for non-citizens to vote? Does she want to amend the Constitution ? If she were up on her history, she could have spoken about Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.. Good lord...this just proves to me that M is just latching onto issues that far more eloquent and genuinely interested people have spoken about.

I couldn’t agree more with your last point

Senior Royals don't vote in the UK which might be what she's talking about. It's not illegal just seen as something they don't do as they have to be seen as above politics and impartial. It's one way the Queen is more popular than most politicians can dream of being.

It's a bit awkward if very hypothetically the Queen is counted in an exit poll and then has to invite someone else to form a government.

But even without that they have an enormous platform to affect change and do good works e.g Harry's Invictus and Sentebale and Meghan's work for Together among many other things.

To try and tie that in with voter suppression and disenfranchisement is completely wrong.

 

[Mbruno]

I didn’t see it, either, but
2) what? For one thing, aside from Harry being among the most privileged people in the world, he’s NOT a US citizen, so he doesn’t get to vote. That’s not voter suppression. Is M going to start a petition for non-citizens to vote? Does she want to amend the Constitution ? If she were up on her history, she could have spoken about Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, etc.. Good lord...this just proves to me that M is just latching onto issues that far more eloquent and genuinely interested people have spoken about.

I couldn’t agree more with your last point

I can't believe Meghan used Harry not being able to vote in the US as an evidence of "voter suppression". It is a basic fact that one must be a citizen to have the right to vote in the United States. As an educated woman, Meghan should know that.


Incidentally, nothing ever prevented Harry to vote in the United Kingdom back when he lived there, but I assume that he never did it because members of the BRF traditionally do not vote.


In the past, royal dukes, I believe, could not vote in elections to the House of Commons because they were already members in their own right of the House of Lords. Following the House of Lords Act 1999, however, hereditary peers can now vote and even stand for election to the House of Commons unless they are one of 92 hereditary peers who still hold a seat in the House of Lords, which is not Harry's case. Furthermore, even before 1999, hereditary peers could always vote in local elections and European elections (back when the UK was still a member of the EU).


Here are some relevant references:


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/34/section/3

Removal of disqualifications in relation to the House of Commons.

(1)The holder of a hereditary peerage shall not be disqualified by virtue of that peerage for—

(a)voting at elections to the House of Commons, or

(b)being, or being elected as, a member of that House.

(2)Subsection (1) shall not apply in relation to anyone excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004072...v.uk/elections/rpacirculars/pdf/rpacir431.pdf

An Order has now been made and laid before Parliament to give those hereditary peers who are no longer members of the House of Lords the right to vote in Parliamentary elections with effect from 16 February 2000 when the new register comes into force. A copy is attached as annex A to this circular.



Any hereditary peer (except the 92) who appears on the register of local government electors should be deemed to be a Parliamentary elector from that date and should appear on the electoral register in the normal way without the letter "L" or any other identifier.


A list of those hereditary peers who no longer have the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords is attached as annex B to this circular. This list does not include the 92 hereditary peers who remain members of the House of Lords. Therefore any names on the list which appear on your local government register should be included in your new Parliamentary register. The list does not include Irish peers but these are already qualified to vote at Parliamentary elections.

EDIT: Annex B in the above-referenced order included:


EDINBURGH, D.

GLOUCESTER, D.
KENT, D.
WALES, P.
YORK, D.

 

[Lilyflo]

If that's the case, then perhaps she shouldn't marry into the BRF in the first place.

Well she clearly felt that not using her political voice was something she was willing to do while being a working HRH. She isn't one now and appreciates having that freedom back. It seems logical and understandable to me.

 

[Lilyflo]

But it is elementary Royal life 101 that you cant "use your voice" politically.. Even if she knows nothing about royal life she must have picked up THIS fact.

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course she knew that was the case and it isn't now.

and if you marry a British Prince and undertake a role as a Duchess, then yo're kind of commited to living mainly in teh UK.

No you aren't. It's an expectation but if the prince wants to live elsewhere, you're both free to do so.

 

[Denville]

I'm not sure what your point is. Of course she knew that was the case and it isn't now.


No you aren't. It's an expectation but if the prince wants to live elsewhere, you're both free to do so.

No, They took on the jobs of working royals, with a special role in the Commonwealth. That meant living largely in the UK and doing some trips. If you want to "live elsewhere" then you tell the queen you don't want to take on the job.

 

[Curryong]

At the time Meghan joined the royal family she was looking forward to working as a RF member, even 'hitting the ground running', the same with both taking on a role with the Commonwealth.

Neither of them had a crystal ball. They didnt know there would be incessant criticism from the Press for example which increased hugely after their Oceania tour. People are entitled to change their minds. What you feel in January is not necessarily true in November, for example.

 

[Betsypaige]

Senior Royals don't vote in the UK which might be what she's talking about. It's not illegal just seen as something they don't do as they have to be seen as above politics and impartial. It's one way the Queen is more popular than most politicians can dream of being.

It's a bit awkward if very hypothetically the Queen is counted in an exit poll and then has to invite someone else to form a government.

But even without that they have an enormous platform to affect change and do good works e.g Harry's Invictus and Sentebale and Meghan's work for Together among many other things.

To try and tie that in with voter suppression and disenfranchisement is completely wrong.

I never thought about that....hmmm. I doubt M was thinking about that, but if she was, she’s beyond clueless.

Mbruno:

I can't believe Meghan used Harry not being able to vote in the US as an evidence of "voter suppression". It is a basic fact that one must be a citizen to have the right to vote in the United States. As an educated woman, Meghan should know that.

You’d think she would know that, and maybe intellectually she does, but she and Harry live in their own little bubble. All I know is that, however intelligent she may be, Meghan either has little common sense or she has no filter...maybe both. First the Africa interview, now this....