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

[Mbruno]

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...

Are you insinuating that was her plan from the start and that all the talk about committing to the UK, the Commonwealth and the RF was just an act?



Quite frankly, given some of her recent statements, it does look like that sometimes, but it is a serious accusation and I wouldn't go that route. In any case, it is something that will never be definitively proven or disproven, isn't it?

 

[Kataryn]

Are you insinuating that was her plan from the start and that all the talk about committing to the UK, the Commonwealth and the RF was just an act?



Quite frankly, given some of her recent statements, it does look like that sometimes, but it is a serious accusation and I wouldn't go that route. In any case, it is something that will never be definitively proven or disproven, isn't it?

I guess someday, hopefully posthumously, the world will be able to read an autobiography by Meghan. For I think it is important for her to tell the things from her side.

 

[Mbruno]

I guess someday, hopefully posthumously, the world will be able to read an autobiography by Meghan. For I think it is important for her to tell the things from her side.

Isn't Finding Freedom already her side of the story? I mean, that she was genuinely trying to give it a go as a British princess, even carried "binders" on royal protocol to get everything right, but was massacred by evil and racist courtiers, journalists and RF members, who couldn't stand how popular and brilliant she was and made her life so miserable that she had no other alternative but to leave and find her voice and freedom again?

 

[Pranter]

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.

Yes I got that from the video, I guess they formed during the early days of Covid? Anyway I'm looking forward to seeing how they do things. As a woman who lives in a flyover state I am hoping they hold true to what they said about making sure bi-partisan voices are included and that they need to seek out women in these areas that are outside the major cities.



LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

Yes I got that from the video, I guess they formed during the early days of Covid? Anyway I'm looking forward to seeing how they do things. As a woman who lives in a flyover state I am hoping they hold true to what they said about making sure bi-partisan voices are included and that they need to seek out women in these areas that are outside the major cities.



LaRae

Could you please repost the link to the video?

 

[Pranter]

Could you please repost the link to the video?

It's actually only a few posts up on this page but here it is again.

 

[Somebody]

Are you insinuating that was her plan from the start and that all the talk about committing to the UK, the Commonwealth and the RF was just an act?

Quite frankly, given some of her recent statements, it does look like that sometimes, but it is a serious accusation and I wouldn't go that route. In any case, it is something that will never be definitively proven or disproven, isn't it?

I do think that from the start she saw becoming a member of the BRF as a way to further her own causes and interests - including gaining a global platform. Everything I've seen points in that direction. That is not necessarily in opposition to what they've stated about how they looked forward to becoming a force for change, using their position to make a difference and being committed to the Commonwealth etc.

I'm not sure whether she considered leaving the BRF if it didn't work out from the start; that's a different issue to me - and something we won't ever know unless they tell us (and depending on whether people believe her). The issue of her not truly committing to her royal role and the responsibilities that come with it, are highlighted by the way they are going about their departure: they are still looking for a global audience, now with the fame and riches but without the restrictions of royal life (at least in their mind).

 

[tommy100]

TBF I think they need to be careful talking about Harry not being able to vote. Firstly, legally I believe he can vote but the RF, especially those with HRH have to support the Queen in being seen to be politically neutral. However, in return they get a lot of privileges in life and also have the ability to influence more than most voters do.

What is starting to get to me about both Harry and Meghan of late is their insistence on turning everything into "us" and "we" and "me". They are in extremely lucky positions in life (yes it comes with downsides but Meghan is sitting in her new $14million home in the video so let's put it into perspective) but seem to turn everything into being about them rather than focussing solely on the charity/issue at hand. Odd given that in the recent book its insisted Harry didn't want news of his and Meghan's appearance at Invictus released to the media in advance as was expected and the norm "incase it detracted from the competitors". That was an admirable believe, if only it was still around at the moment.

 

[Pranter]

TBF I think they need to be careful talking about Harry not being able to vote. Firstly, legally I believe he can vote but the RF, especially those with HRH have to support the Queen in being seen to be politically neutral. However, in return they get a lot of privileges in life and also have the ability to influence more than most voters do.

What is starting to get to me about both Harry and Meghan of late is their insistence on turning everything into "us" and "we" and "me". They are in extremely lucky positions in life (yes it comes with downsides but Meghan is sitting in her new $14million home in the video so let's put it into perspective) but seem to turn everything into being about them rather than focussing solely on the charity/issue at hand. Odd given that in the recent book its insisted Harry didn't want news of his and Meghan's appearance at Invictus released to the media in advance as was expected and the norm "incase it detracted from the competitors". That was an admirable believe, if only it was still around at the moment.

Have you watched the video to actually see what was said and in the context Harry was even mentioned? If not please do so. She is not trying to get Harry to vote or anything of the sort.


LaRae

 

[Curbside]

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.

Meghan managed to get into an elite university, and Northwestern is not a charm school—full disclosure, NU is my alma mater. She is not stupid.

 

[Curbside]

Where is a link to this interview? I can’t find it.

 

[mothrpoet]

As a native Californian, I can certainly understand their choice of Santa Barbara as a residence. However, if they must be in Los Angeles or Beverly Hills for business or pleasure, it’s almost a two hour drive on one of the worst freeways, the Ventura. The wealthy avail themselves of helicopters and private planes to commute. Although a resident of Orange County, to the south, Kobe Bryant regularly helicoptered to his gym in Simi Valley to avoid the same freeway. And if they do drive the journey, the Sussex’s security-chauffeured SUV will leave quite the carbon footprint. The eco-warriors will again be exposing themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.

 

[Pranter]

Where is a link to this interview? I can’t find it.

I posted it twice on the previous page

 

[Curbside]

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

Who cares? She gave it a whirl, decided it wasn’t for her, and decided life is too short to deal with the frustrations with so few relative rewards.

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.

Having a voice is totally separate from having privilege.

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'...





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...

So now that she no longer works for the BRF, she needs to sit in a corner for the rest of her life?

 

[tommy100]

Have you watched the video to actually see what was said and in the context Harry was even mentioned? If not please do so. She is not trying to get Harry to vote or anything of the sort.


LaRae

Watched it twice before I posted and once just now in case I'd missed something. She makes some good points but it is always a slippery slope when Royals talk about themselves as any one with experience of the media will know that is what they will focus on not the cause in hand. I didn't suggest she was trying to get Harry to vote but mentioning it anywhere near the same context as others who can't vote for reasons less privileged than being part of the BRF is always going to get the media focussing on the wrong issue IMO.

 

[Mbruno]

(.......)

I have seen the video now. She was clearly talking about disenfranchisement and then mentioned that her husband for example “ has never been able to vote” ., so she was referring to Harry’s voting rights in the UK and implying he was disenfranchised, which is not only false, but also shows poor understanding of the constitutional position of the RF as I said before.

The whole interview is a succession of platitudes and clichés and her remark about her husband’s disenfranchisement only adds to the superficiality of it all.

 

[Curbside]

I posted it twice on the previous page

Thanks! The thread piled up posts pretty quickly and I couldn’t find the link without being distracted.

 

[evolvingdoors]

I guess someday, hopefully posthumously, the world will be able to read an autobiography by Meghan. For I think it is important for her to tell the things from her side.

I believe that biography is called “finding Freedom”
Too much personal information (that can only come from her) and too much blowing her own trumpet for it to not be.
The fact she is not suing Omid for an invasion of privacy is another major telling.

 

[Lilyflo]

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.

If you mean this one in Marie Claire, which is about voting, the actual quote is:

I know what it's like to have a voice, and also what it's like to feel voiceless. I also know that so many men and women have put their lives on the line for us to be heard. And that opportunity, that fundamental right, is in our ability to exercise our right to vote and to make all of our voices heard.

https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a33264457/women-voting-2020-election/

Where's the complaint? Meghan is just stating a fact and for someone who values her freedom to speak on political matters, it must have been challenging to lose that freedom as an HRH and "feel voiceless" but in that quote above, she's not complaining about it and why would she because that's something she'd have been told was part of the deal marrying Harry and becoming a member of the working BRF. The reason I'm sure she'd have been told about it was because from the time of the engagement onwards, she remained politically silent as they all do.

 

[Curbside]

I have seen the video now. She was clearly talking about disenfranchisement and then mentioned that her husband for example “ has never been able to vote” ., so she was referring to Harry’s voting rights in the UK and implying he was disenfranchised, which is not only false, but also shows poor understanding of the constitutional position of the RF as I said before.



The whole interview is a succession of platitudes and clichés and her remark about her husband’s disenfranchisement only adds to the superficiality of it all.

Her husband has never truly been “enfranchised,” and that’s the point I think Meghan was trying to make.

I have seen the video now. She was clearly talking about disenfranchisement and then mentioned that her husband for example “ has never been able to vote” ., so she was referring to Harry’s voting rights in the UK and implying he was disenfranchised, which is not only false, but also shows poor understanding of the constitutional position of the RF as I said before.



The whole interview is a succession of platitudes and clichés and her remark about her husband’s disenfranchisement only adds to the superficiality of it all.

I’m confused—senior royals are expected not to vote. How is this not disenfranchisement?

 

[Durham]

The exact quote is "my husband for example, he's never been able to vote".

She's wrong.

I’m confused—senior royals are expected not to vote. How is this not disenfranchisement?

Because they are not disenfranchised. Why do you think they are?

 

[Osipi]

One thing I learned a very long time ago is that if you want to talk to people and you want them to hear you and understand and pay attention to what you're saying is that you have to talk to people in a language that they understand.

There is one thing that, to me, detracts from what Meghan was trying to say about being able to vote. She was talking to American people about the American privilege of having a say in their country by means of having a vote and being part of the decision. That's all well and good. She lost a lot of people though when she veers into "my husband" (and also alluding to the fact that he's a prince that by tradition doesn't vote in the UK). To me it seems like she's pulling what I call an "Edith Bunker". Telling a story and going off on a tangent that just isn't necessary to the subject.

In a way, this proves to me how the half in, half out would never have worked. To be pertinent to people and get a clear, precise message across, its distracting to be "changing hats" while speaking. At one point, Meghan comes across as an American valuing American privilege to have a "voice" and using it. Midstream, she takes off the red, white and blue Uncle Sam top hat and switches to a tiara bringing up "my husband, the prince". Harry, in reality, to American people right now is living in the US basically as a "guest" and husband of an American citizen. His restrictions on voting either in the US or even "back home in his own country" is irrelevant.

Sometimes I get the feeling that having the best of both worlds is the aim and by doing so, people get confused and don't know who they really are. Are they really "not royal" anymore and striking out on their own or are they really believing that the glitz and glamour of being "royal" is something to keep up front and visible and polished as a brightly lit theater marquee to continue to be "pertinent" and draw in the crowds to listen?

Wearing too many hats at one time hides the true face of who a person is and gets people thinking about hats rather than the message. If you're going to be an American, speak and act like an American. If you're going to be "royal", exemplify what being "royal" is all about. If you're going to be a hockey player, stick to playing hockey.

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

 

[Eskimo]

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.

Which makes even less sense since Harry has a right to vote in UK elections but chooses not to do so (per convention for BRF members). How in the world is this disenfranchisement?

 

[Durham]

Wearing too many hats at one time hides the true face of who a person is and gets people thinking about hats rather than the message. If you're going to be an American, speak and act like an American. If you're going to be "royal", exemplify what being "royal" is all about. If you're going to be a hockey player, stick to playing hockey.

I hope this makes some kind of sense.

Yes it does. Perfect sense.

This anomolous situation has been raised before. It's all very unsatisfactory & would be best resolved. Maybe that will come in time.

 

[Betsypaige]

I have seen the video now. She was clearly talking about disenfranchisement and then mentioned that her husband for example “ has never been able to vote” ., so she was referring to Harry’s voting rights in the UK and implying he was disenfranchised, which is not only false, but also shows poor understanding of the constitutional position of the RF as I said before.

The whole interview is a succession of platitudes and clichés and her remark about her husband’s disenfranchisement only adds to the superficiality of it all.

Thank you for clarifying.....that’s pretty awful because Harry gets to do a ton of things that others don’t. No one is going to feel sorry for him. Meghan has no clue what disenfranchisement means, and even though she’s referring to the U.K., it bothers me because it makes me wonder how much does she not know about things she talks about.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Meghan managed to get into an elite university, and Northwestern is not a charm school—full disclosure, NU is my alma mater. She is not stupid.

I am familiar with NW, I have a friend who went there for her PhD (she taught the bs level students.. she was not impressed). Myself, as a graduate of a different US college, I am all too aware that bachelor level in the US is more often than not.. what it is.
And that money can get you accepted very easily, even with mediocre grades.
And that unless you fail miserably you can still graduate.
I may be remembering wrong, but I don’t think Meghan graduated with any of honors, so she was at best an average student.

I have read her writings and heard her speeches... she lacks real depth, her writings, as I noted previously are pieces of “word salads”, it reads like a freshmen English essay where they try to fit as many words as possible to reach the limit (I have done that myself) it’s all buzzwords and shallow thoughts.
There’s no true depth to what she says.
It is obvious she lacks the smarts and common sense to use whatever knowledge she posses in a constructive and influential way. She constantly inserts herself into the narrative of whatever she is talking about, taking away from the cause and focusing on herself.
(As she apparently did in this latest interview- where she was supposed to be interviewing the founder, but to my understanding she did most of the talking)

 

[Durham]

So now that she no longer works for the BRF, she needs to sit in a corner for the rest of her life?

Is this a rhetorical question? I can't find any suggestion on the thread that the duchess should do as you describe.

The duchess remains a member of the royal family & as such is expected to respect certain conventions that's all.

 

[Curbside]

Because they are not disenfranchised. Why do you think they are?

Because if you’re only able to vote in theory and don’t due to convention, then you’re not really able to vote. Do the senior royals vote, or not?

One thing I learned a very long time ago is that if you want to talk to people and you want them to hear you and understand and pay attention to what you're saying is that you have to talk to people in a language that they understand.



There is one thing that, to me, detracts from what Meghan was trying to say about being able to vote. She was talking to American people about the American privilege of having a say in their country by means of having a vote and being part of the decision. That's all well and good. She lost a lot of people though when she veers into "my husband" (and also alluding to the fact that he's a prince that by tradition doesn't vote in the UK). To me it seems like she's pulling what I call an "Edith Bunker". Telling a story and going off on a tangent that just isn't necessary to the subject.


....

I agree mostly with this, except voting is not a privilege, it’s a right.

 

[Durham]

Because if you’re only able to vote in theory and don’t due to convention, then you’re not really able to vote. Do the senior royals vote, or not?

That's a different point. You stated that they were disenfranchised which they are not.

The more important question is why does the convention exist? There is a historical context here.

If a member of the royal family wishes to exercise their franchise the honourable action to take is to abjure their titles & become a private citizen.

 

[Mbruno]

Because if you’re only able to vote in theory and don’t due to convention, then you’re not really able to vote. Do the senior royals vote, or not?

I agree that the topic is controversial and could be discussed in another forum. Clearly it is not controversial that people in direct line to the throne like the Prince of Wales or the DoC are right to abstain voluntarily from voting ( for obvious reasons), but should that convention necessarily extend to Harry, or to Beatrice and Eugenie, or to the Princess Royal ?

Regardless of one’s opinion on that issue , Meghan’s example was , however, inappropriate. She was talking about the struggle for voting rights , which is clearly meant to refer to groups of people like women, Indians or other minorities who, as a result of social discrimination and inequality, were not only legally barred from voting, but actually were denied any voice or influence in public affairs. Then she mentioned , in that same context, her husband who not only can legally vote, but also, on the contrary, has a direct line , if he wanted to , to ministers and legislators, and probably potentially far more influence in public affairs than any ordinary voter. So , in the broader sense, Harry is exactly the opposite of a diisenfranchised person and it is beyond belief to me that Meghan would use him as an example of disenfranchisement.

EDIiT: Other than in Belgium , where voting is compulsory and Royals ( with the exception of the King and Queen) regularly vote, I don’t think senior royals in any European monarchy do, but I am not sure how low one has to go in the line of succession for that convention to cease to apply. It would be really great to discuss that in a more appropriate forum.