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

[Lilyflo]

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.

They didn't want to live elsewhere to start with. They then changed their minds (for a myriad of reasons under discussion here), which they are free to do.

 

[Denville]

They didn't want to live elsewhere to start with. They then changed their minds (for a myriad of reasons under discussion here), which they are free to do.

Some may think that... I'm inclined to think that Meg had no intention of being full time.

 

[RandyDrx]

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.

It's pretty clear they want to have their cake and eat it too, as evidenced by their statement in January when they say they want to be "half in, half out" royals.

Harry and Meghan were free to decline the Sussex titles from the Queen and Harry was free to remove himself from the line of succession before they had their royal wedding if they valued their freedom so much.

But then "Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" doesn't sound as glamorous as "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex" doesn't it?

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.

I always find it funny how some people think that Meghan is the first and only married-in royal to have criticism from the press. ALL married-in royals were criticised at some point. Heck, Kate was critised for more than a DECADE, from "Waity Katie", "The Wisteria Sisters", "doors to manual", etc. And she never complained, not even once.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The video makes me cringe, the body language! She's so full of herself, trying hard to sound intelligent to stay relevant with her fancy message. And then the name dropping 'my husband' ... privacy must be very boring

 

[Mbruno]

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

Mbruno:



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....

If Meghan had remained in the UK and become a UK citizen, she could vote in UK elections too, but that would be a big "no-no". I wonder if Meghan would consider herself "disenfranchised" and would speak publicly against that in such scenario. She definitely didn't understand the institutution she was marrying into, which is surprising considering that Omid said in the book that she carried "binders" of files on royal protocol while she was in the UK and considering she is supposed to be so brilliant and smart as he claims.



In any case, I think the context of her remark about Harry's disenfranchisement has nothing to do with the RF not voting in the UK, but rather is a reference to Harry's lack of voting rights in the US, which is a clear-cut and uncontroversial issue that, again, such a brilliant person should know. Does anyone care to fill in further details of the context of her quote?

It's pretty clear they want to have their cake and eat it too, as evidenced by their statement in January when they say they want to be "half in, half out" royals.

Harry and Meghan were free to decline the Sussex titles from the Queen and Harry was free to remove himself from the line of succession before they had their royal wedding if they valued their freedom so much.

But then "Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" doesn't sound as glamorous as "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex" doesn't it?

Harry could have declined his peerage at the time (he cannot do it anymore now). He could not "remove himself from the line of succession". He could mention his desire to be removed from the line of succession, but that would require legislation passed by the UK parliament and parliaments of other Commonwealth realms like Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example. It is a very complicated process actually.



He could theoretically remove himself by converting to Roman Catholicism, but that would have to be a genuine conversion. The Catholic Church would not take him without an assurance that he was converting in his own free will and fully understood what it meant and was fully committted to it.



Queen Astrid of the Belgians, who was a Lutheran, indicated for example that she wanted to convert when she married Prince Leopold because "Catholicism was Belgium's religion and as a member of the Belgian RF, she should be Catholic" (in fact, Belgium does not have a state religion, but , as a Swedish princess, the idea of an "established church" associated with the RF was probably natural to her, I guess). The Church didn't agree to receive her until long after her marriage and a lengthy preparation.

 

[evolvingdoors]

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.

Please let’s not be obtuse.
I read what she said before I posted my comment and I commented accordingly.
It was a redo of the SA tour “woe is me”
I have zero doubt she was told and warned multiple times, and she could have googled this herself. She is now ones again, indirectly this time, blaming the royal family for her life choices.
She is a 39 year old woman.
Not a 12 or even 19 year old.

Also she majored in international relations, I highly doubt this was not covered, ie: keeping political bias to yourself when dealing with other governments.

 

[Denville]

I

Harry could have declined his peerage at the time (he cannot do it anymore now). He could not "remove himself from the line of succession". He could mention his desire to be removed from the line of succession, but that would require legislation passed by the UK parliament and parliaments of other Commonwealth realms like Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example. It is a very complicated process actually.



He could theoretically remove himself by converting to Roman Catholicism, but that would have to be a genuine conversion. The Catholic Church would not take him without an assurance that he was converting in his own free will and fully understood what it meant and was fully committted to it.



on.

He could have done it if he had wanted to.... It might take some time, but its very unlikely that he would come up against actually being on the verge of being king...He could have told the Queen that he didn't want the royal duties, he would prefer not to become a Royal Duke.. and that he wanted to be removed from the line of succession.. and that he and Meg would be re locating to the USA and starting their own career there. I'm sure the queen would have been unhappy with his decision but she would have gone along with it..and he and Meg could have had a small private wedding and moved away...
I find it hard to believe that this was a sudden decision based on their unhappiness...

 

[evolvingdoors]

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???

She’s more than likely about him not voting in the U.K.

Look, I get, the duty to vote is one of my personal favorites and at the top of my list and I have done a great deal to maintain this duty of mine.
But I also understand why it is crucial to have a. apolitical state representative, maybe it’s because my country has both a pm and a president, don’t know.

 

[Denville]

She’s more than likely about him not voting in the U.K.

Look, I get, the duty to vote is one of my personal favorites and at the top of my list and I have done a great deal to maintain this duty of mine.
But I also understand why it is crucial to have a. apolitical state representative, maybe it’s because my country has both a pm and a president, don’t know.

If she is talkng about him not voting in the UK that's convention, not that he's deprived of a vote.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

Sorry, but her saying that "it's good to be home" and having "her voice back" which she hasn't had lately sounds a lot like a slap in the face of everybody in the UK and the Commonwealth realms in my opinion. It is not just about the Royal Family alone anymore.


I am glad she is gone now because it is clear she would never have worked out in the RF with that kind of mindset. It is obvious that she was not committed to a royal life, has zero interest in living in the UK , and probably doesn't like the place at all.



If she wants to be a woke California activist and be where she feels "at home", that is her choice, but I suppose there must be people in the UK who feel disappointed that she dragged Harry and, by extension, Archie too into her own life choices. I don't mean that in a critical way. After all, Harry is an adult and he is free to choose to follow his wife rather than the other around (i.e. her following him as a member of RF). But there are expectations about people who are born into the BRF and, although most people in Britain probably don't care one way or the other nowadays, some may feel let down.



In any case, Meghan's tone was rude to say the least.

 

[Denville]

If she's really so "happy to be home", I think it suggests that she never wanted to be away from it in the first place.

 

[evolvingdoors]

If she is talkng about him not voting in the UK that's convention, not that he's deprived of a vote.

True.
But I can’t see how him not being able to vote in the US, a country he has never resided in until 4 months ago, not is a citizen!
It just doesn’t match with the topic of infringement of voter rights.
Him not voting in the U.K., because he can not due to being a member of the royal family, does.
I don’t know she was obviously told about the no vote decision of the royal family, but perhaps either truly did not get it (which makes me wonder how she even got into NW to begin with) or decided it was a stupid decision and wrong and didn’t bother to wrap her head around the historical reasons for it.

Either way, she was obviously talking about about Harry and the U.K.

 

[Denville]

True.
But I can’t see how him not being able to vote in the US, a country he has never resided in until 4 months ago, not is a citizen!
It just doesn’t match with the topic of infringement of voter rights.
Him not voting in the U.K., because he can not due to being a member of the royal family, does.
I don’t know she was obviously told about the no vote decision of the royal family, but perhaps either truly did not get it (which makes me wonder how she even got into NW to begin with) or decided it was a stupid decision and wrong and didn’t bother to wrap her head around the historical reasons for it.

Either way, she was obviously talking about about Harry and the U.K.

He CAN vote.. in the UK - just by convention royals don't.. because they are supposed to remain above party politics. (The queen cant vote)...

 

[caethi]

It is easy to pile on the criticisms once a person opens the door to them. In a report of another recent interview ( can’t remember source, sorry) Meghan is quoted as saying “I have a voice, and I have been voiceless”. That was the first time I cringed. When she repeated the sentiment I found it plain annoying. I really do want to be fair to Meghan; she was treated abominably by much of the British press. That being said, complaining about not having a voice at the same time as she was living an incredibly privileged life is not a good look in my opinion.

 

[Heavs]

If she's talking about Harry voting in the UK that's still completely different from being disenfranchised or various voter suppression tactics in the US and other countries. Being "above politics" because of his privileged position gives him a far bigger platform than "one man, one vote" could ever do, despite restrictions. I understand that might be a strange convention if you're also expected to follow and you cherish the ability to vote and campaign, it but it's also very basic royal etiquette that should have been apparent long before she got married.

If she's talking about the US then it's just silly because of course he can't vote, he's not a citizen.

Neither have any impact on the real voting problems that many in the US are facing because they both always had a voice unlike many people in those communities and they also want for nothing materially and have the best of everything available if needs be. Mixing the two isn't actually helping any of the actual people who really need a voice and comes off self centred even if you mean well.

 

[Mbruno]

True.
But I can’t see how him not being able to vote in the US, a country he has never resided in until 4 months ago, not is a citizen!
It just doesn’t match with the topic of infringement of voter rights.
Him not voting in the U.K., because he can not due to being a member of the royal family, does.
I don’t know she was obviously told about the no vote decision of the royal family, but perhaps either truly did not get it (which makes me wonder how she even got into NW to begin with) or decided it was a stupid decision and wrong and didn’t bother to wrap her head around the historical reasons for it.

Either way, she was obviously talking about about Harry and the U.K.

Either way, it looks bad on her in my opinion. If she was talking about Harry not voting in the UK, it proves that she doesn't have a clue about the constitutional position of the RF in the UK and would have run into trouble eventually if she had stayed as a working royal. If, on the other hand, she was talking about Harry not voting in the US, it proves she doesn't grasp basic concepts of US law.



It was a weird example that had nothing to do with the point she was trying to make about voters' disenfranchisement and which makes her come across as shallow / superficial.

 

[Prinsara]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but isn't it possible she wasn't talking about Harry being disenfranchised, but how he is simply not allowed to vote, either way? Because he is a person who is not, and never has been. It doesn't have to reflect ignorance on her part. Not being able to vote is difficult, though I think Harry was a poor choice of example.

 

[Pranter]

Neat little video with Harry ...some cute moments with the group.

 

[victor1319]

The Girl, the Princess and the Actress

Normally kitschy movies and sometimes the reality go like this: Girl gets Prince, lands at the royal court. And she thinks, she can change the old-fashioned, outdated, troubled and toxic circumstances there with her good heart and common sense.

But after some first successes she gets ino trouble and collides with the other Royals, which out-smart her with better knowledge of the protocol.

But our girl is not giving up, learns the whole stuff and becomes a worthy member of the court - a true Princess! And she lives happy ever after...

So it was done by Catherine the Great, which ended up on the Throne as one of the most famous women in history. She started, though, as a poor girl without knowledge of anything Russian and was about to be sent to a monastery as a nun by her evil husband after giving birth to the Heir. But she out-smarted him...

But Meghan stayed the "Girl" and never became the "Princess"!

The question is: Why? Is she not that much into Princess-movies? Or did she sacrify herself for Harry, who wanted to get out? A lot of us blame Meghan, because... Yeah, why? Because the Media tells the truth? I think, no-one should forget, that Meghan is a professional actress and Harry comes from a family, which has learned some "contenance" and to put on a friendly-stoical face all the time! I'm not saying, it is all just a scripted docu soap opera, but it could be and we royal watchers should be careful to judge them too early!

 

[Somebody]

Harry could have declined his peerage at the time (he cannot do it anymore now). He could not "remove himself from the line of succession". He could mention his desire to be removed from the line of succession, but that would require legislation passed by the UK parliament and parliaments of other Commonwealth realms like Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example. It is a very complicated process actually.

He could theoretically remove himself by converting to Roman Catholicism, but that would have to be a genuine conversion. The Catholic Church would not take him without an assurance that he was converting in his own free will and fully understood what it meant and was fully committted to it.

Given that he needed the queen's permission to marry, couldn't he just have indicated to his grandmother that he rather not receive her formal permission but still marry so he and Meghan could go their own way? And he would no longer be in line to the throne because he married without the queen's permission...

 

[Somebody]

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?

Probably because it actually enormously increased her voice. Until she dated prince Harry only a small group of people had even heard of her (even though she had managed to move herself up to being part of the 'elite' circles), so while she could say whatever she liked, her reach was much more limited than it was when she entered the BRF. Now, she has both: the fame from the BRF and the freedom to say and do whatever she likes (theoretically with some restrictions but their interpretation of 'upholding the values of the queen' doesn't seem to hinder them to do as they please in terms of painting the inner workings of the firm and family in a bad light or picking any topic of their liking to comment on).

 

[Mbruno]

Given that he needed the queen's permission to marry, couldn't he just have indicated to his grandmother that he rather not receive her formal permission but still marry so he and Meghan could go their own way? And he would no longer be in line to the throne because he married without the queen's permission...

Yes, that would have been possible too. But that would have also automatically excluded future chidren from the succession. Joining the Catholic Church would have no effect on the children's succession rights unless they became Catholics too.

Probably because it actually enormously increased her voice. Until she dated prince Harry only a small group of people had even heard of her (even though she had managed to move herself up to being part of the 'elite' circles), so while she could say whatever she liked, her reach was much more limited than it was when she entered the BRF. Now, she has both: the fame from the BRF and the freedom to say and do whatever she likes (theoretically with some restrictions but their interpretation of 'upholding the values of the queen' doesn't seem to hinder them to do as they please in terms of painting the inner workings of the firm and family in a bad light or picking any topic of their liking to comment on).

I guess "upholding the values of the Queen" is pretty much meaningless right now as Meghan has made it clear that she considers herself free to do as she pleases and say what she wants.



I don't think she will necessarily show up tomorrow in a Kamala Harris campaign rally (there aren't any anyway right now because of the public health emergency), but, short of that, I feel like she has embraced 100 % the California activist persona.

 

[Somebody]

Yes, that would have been possible too. But that would have also automatically excluded future chidren from the succession. Joining the Catholic Church would have no effect on the children's succession rights unless they became Catholics too.

Of course, but that seems a logical consequence of their choice to distance themselves from the family. The current situation is one in which Harry and Archie who decided to start a life in America (well Archie not so much himself but he will most likely grow up as American) are still only one tragic accident away from becoming king of the UK and 'the other realms'...

I guess "upholding the values of the Queen" is pretty much meaningless right now as Meghan has made it clear that she considers herself free to do as she pleases and say what she wants.

I don't think she will necesarily show up tomorrow in a Kamala Harris campaign rally (there aren't any anyway right now because of the public health emergency), but, short of that, I feel like she has embraced 100 % the California activist persona.

Exactly, and that to me is problematic. The BRF has been 'used' to create a global platform for Meghan. That's not what a royal family is for...

 

[Pranter]

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???

They were talking about the right to vote and how important it is and that ppl need to remember how hard it was to get the right to vote (earlier they talked about The Suffragettes and women voting in the US) and how ppl now days take it for granted. She said my husband has never been able to vote ...there was no digs at the UK or anything about how Harry should be able to vote or not in the U.S.

She never at all compared anything about Harry to the plight of the Black vote in the U.S.

Here's the link:

I had never heard of this group, The 19th, I have now followed them on FB to see how they are or how they do things.





LaRae

 

[JR76]

Given that he needed the queen's permission to marry, couldn't he just have indicated to his grandmother that he rather not receive her formal permission but still marry so he and Meghan could go their own way? And he would no longer be in line to the throne because he married without the queen's permission...

Would that really affect Harry's place in the line of succession? Without the Queen's formal permission the marriage would be legally void and Harry's children would be illegitimate but to my knowledge Harry would still be in the line of succession and a member of the Royal family. The Duke of Cambridge married in contravenance with the Royal marriages act in 1847 but was still a member of the Royal family for the rest of his long life.

 

[Somebody]

I had never heard of this group, The 19th, I have now followed them on FB to see how they are or how they do things.

LaRae

A few days (?) back there were lots of posts about Meghan inviting herself to 'The 19th' conference - it's a new platform that she apparently heard of and contacted to see how she could get involved.

 

[DuchessMia]

Pranter, the 19th* was formed this year, but its origins harken back to the election of 2016. The founder speaks about it in the video. And no...Meghan didn’t compare Harry’s non-voting status to the Suffragettes or African Americans. The convo and train of thought are clear if the video is watched.

 

[Somebody]

Would that really affect Harry's place in the line of succession? Without the Queen's formal permission the marriage would be legally void and Harry's children would be illegitimate but to my knowledge Harry would still be in the line of succession and a member of the Royal family. The Duke of Cambridge married in contravenance with the Royal marriages act in 1847 but was still a member of the Royal family for the rest of his long life.

That was indeed the case until the changes of 2013 took place. If I understand it correctly, under the current rules the marriage is still legally valid but both the one who contracted the marriage without the monarch's consent and their off-spring are no longer (or will not be) in line to the throne.

See the actual Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Yes, that would have been possible too. But that would have also automatically excluded future chidren from the succession. Joining the Catholic Church would have no effect on the children's succession rights unless they became Catholics too.





I guess "upholding the values of the Queen" is pretty much meaningless right now as Meghan has made it clear that she considers herself free to do as she pleases and say what she wants.



I don't think she will necessarily show up tomorrow in a Kamala Harris campaign rally (there aren't any anyway right now because of the public health emergency), but, short of that, I feel like she has embraced 100 % the California activist persona.

“I feel like she has embraced 100 % the California activist persona”
That has always been her persona, you just need to look at her obvious faux activism history, and one of the reasons why some of us rang the alarm bells when the engagement was announced.

 

[JR76]

That was indeed the case until the changes of 2013 took place. If I understand it correctly, under the current rules the marriage is still legally valid but both the one who contracted the marriage without the monarch's consent and their off-spring are no longer (or will not be) in line to the throne.

See the actual Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

Thank you! I had no idea about this.