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

[Countessmeout]

No offense, but in the world hundreds of cable channels and online streaming, an actress like Meghan, with what is essentially a: minimum days, sag salary rate paycheck, supporting role, is very common.
does it constituted as success: meh.
Would it be enough to say get an artist visa? Yes, I’m fact I know actors who got those on far less.

So I wouldn’t say she had a “successful career” she was the same as most c-list actors who bag a minor recurring/on the cast role in an ensemble show.
I mean, she was 6th billed out of 6.. and her on screen time was at best 6 minutes of a 42 min episode.

Meghan is hardly a 'recurring' character on Suits. She was a main cast member of an ensemble show. I know that the 'recurring' fits your make her sound as tiny as humanly possible box better, but lets stick to fact.

For an actress, having a main role on a successful television show for seven years is actually considered successful. Many actors struggle to achieve that. Add to that she also did tv movies and guest things like Chopped along the way. The reality is many actors get their start on a show like Suits and it gives them a boost to bigger roles or at least more roles. We have no idea where Meghan would have gone if she had continued with acting.

She was hardly simply an actress even before she met Harry. She was already patron for World vision and the UN as well as others. She had a clothing line. She had a lifestyle blog that had a huge following.

People complaining that the only thing she has on her bio is royal duchess, like that is her only achievement. No that is what is her main role, what draws them in now. Actress, designer, charity ambassador (pre Harry). What would other royal brides in the UK have on their bio other then royal duchess?

 

[poppy7]

Meghan is hardly a 'recurring' character on Suits. She was a main cast member of an ensemble show. I know that the 'recurring' fits your make her sound as tiny as humanly possible box better, but lets stick to fact.

For an actress, having a main role on a successful television show for seven years is actually considered successful. Many actors struggle to achieve that. Add to that she also did tv movies and guest things like Chopped along the way. The reality is many actors get their start on a show like Suits and it gives them a boost to bigger roles or at least more roles. We have no idea where Meghan would have gone if she had continued with acting.

She was hardly simply an actress even before she met Harry. She was already patron for World vision and the UN as well as others. She had a clothing line. She had a lifestyle blog that had a huge following.

People complaining that the only thing she has on her bio is royal duchess, like that is her only achievement. No that is what is her main role, what draws them in now. Actress, designer, charity ambassador (pre Harry). What would other royal brides in the UK have on their bio other then royal duchess?

She wasn't a patron for the UN
They turned her down. She gave that speech. I do think she worked hard and had success but the marriage she what really gave her a platform.

 

[Ista]

Several posts have been edited or deleted as off topic, overly speculative, or argumentative.

It's time to move on from the circular discussion over Meghan's acting career: it's non-productive, and something that has been endlessly debated. At this point, no one's mind is being changed, and it's derailing the thread.

Any further off topic, speculative, circular, or argumentative posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[Sun Lion]

“Watch out for the mudslides” -

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new home in depth, by it’s designer.

The wine cellar is scented - by wine, the floors non-squeak, fog sensors and sun sensors to control the heating.

A breakdown of on-going expenses.

The mudslide disaster of 2018 came within 200ft of the property.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rning-designer-Harry-Meghans-11m-mansion.html


Please Note: Oprah Winfrey does not live next door. Her birthday party was once held at a neighbourghing property. Ms Winfrey’s house is quite some distance away.

 

[gerry]

“Watch out for the mudslides” -

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new home in depth, by it’s designer.

The wine cellar is scented - by wine, the floors non-squeak, fog sensors and sun sensors to control the heating.

A breakdown of on-going expenses.

The mudslide disaster of 2018 came within 200ft of the property.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rning-designer-Harry-Meghans-11m-mansion.html


Please Note: Oprah Winfrey does not live next door. Her birthday party was once held at a neighbourghing property. Ms Winfrey’s house is quite some distance away.

Thank you Sun Lion for literally bringing us back down to earth! I have read through the last three pages of commentary with some difficulty as I am trying to keep awake after a very long day. Nevertheless, no one has mentioned or posted this contribution to our Sussex discussion from the New York Times so here it is:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/15/...=footer&req_id=362483079&surface=most-popular

I think that many of you upthread have hit the nail on the nose as far as the reason why Prince Harry does not vote and why his Duchess is happy to take on this role for him in their new American home. I think you will find the New York Times article (and I hope you take the opportunity to read it) useful in helping with understanding the Duchess' position in all of this. Myself, I am reminded of an article I read somewhere about Carla Bruni's marriage to Nicolas Sarkozy: an aging starlet who married fame and fortune, trying to make something of it. I do believe this describes our Meghan to a T. In any case, she, Meghan, has got a nice house out of it

 

[Eskimo]

I don’t think they will live here for more than a year or two. It costs too much to maintain and even if they have the money, they will probably come to the realization that maintaining this property might not be the best use of their funds.

 

[Betsypaige]

“Watch out for the mudslides” -

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new home in depth, by it’s designer.

The wine cellar is scented - by wine, the floors non-squeak, fog sensors and sun sensors to control the heating.

A breakdown of on-going expenses.

The mudslide disaster of 2018 came within 200ft of the property.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rning-designer-Harry-Meghans-11m-mansion.html


Please Note: Oprah Winfrey does not live next door. Her birthday party was once held at a neighbourghing property. Ms Winfrey’s house is quite some distance away.

The house does sound amazing......

 

[Somebody]

Hillary Clinton, Michele Obama and Kamala Harris were part of this. No one besides Meghan’s most ardent fans saw her as the biggest anything where this was concerned.

The organization did - based on the promotion I saw (but they of course might also have targeted their promotion to various audiences)... stating things like 'we even have a duchess' (or words like that); as if that is the top spot (in the States, no less).

But that's exactly why she is known as teh Duchess of Sussex. As Meghan Markle, she would not be ultra rich, she would not be well known and would not be a draw....

Yes, so, that makes it so contradictory - especially for this specific organization that is promoting women in politics etc. The only reason she was 'on the ticket' was because of her marriage while both this organization and Meghan herself are full of women empowerment; but in her case it is all because of the man she married. You would think that that must sting at times... Because it seems to go against everything she believes in.

People complaining that the only thing she has on her bio is royal duchess, like that is her only achievement. No that is what is her main role, what draws them in now. Actress, designer, charity ambassador (pre Harry). What would other royal brides in the UK have on their bio other then royal duchess?

If they were working as a member of the royal family, that is exactly what the focus should be on. However, Harry and Meghan decided to step away from it all. So, that should not be the thing they build their lives on. They rejected that part of their lives... that's disappointing but their choice. However, both rejecting it and trying to making a profit of it, is duplicitous - and goes against the core values of the royal family (which is why the half-in half-out was refused).

 

[Mbruno]

The organization did - based on their promotion... stating things like 'we even have a duchess' (or words like that); as if that is the top spot (in the States, no less).



Yes, so, that makes it so contradictory - especially for this specific organization that is promoting women in politics etc. The only reason she was 'on the ticket' was because of her marriage while both this organization and Meghan herself are full of women empowerment; but in her case it is all because of the man she married. You would think that that must sting at times... Because it seems to go against everything she believes in.

TBH that kind of promotion actually puzzles me.


Apart from the fact that some dukes, especially in the UK, still tend to be quite wealthy (though not US-style billionaries), being a (non-royal) duke nowadays only entitles you to the use of a title and an honorific prefix, and perhaps a certain precedence in public or private events, and even those minor privileges only apply to the very few countries where dukedoms are still active and are legally recognized like the UK or Spain for example.

Of course a royal duchess who also happens to be technically a princess (by marriage) is at another level, but most Americans probably don't understand such nuances. In any case, even in the UK , having a non-royal duke at your event wouldn't be such a big draw nowadays. It is odd that it would be considered such a big deal and a reason to brag about in a country like the US which prides itself in not recognizing titles of nobility and not (at least legally) differentiating between people based on family name or birth status. I mean, that goes against all the "republican" values upon which the US was founded.

 

[Curbside]

Meghan has a pretty high profile here due to the novelty factor of having had a career and being married into royalty. She is also well spoken and good in interviews.

 

[Leopoldine]

Of course a royal duchess who also happens to be technically a princess (by marriage) is at another level, but most Americans probably don't understand such nuances. In any case, even in the UK , having a non-royal duke at your event wouldn't be such a big draw nowadays. It is odd that it would be considered such a big deal and a reason to brag about in a country like the US which prides itself in not recognizing titles of nobility and not (at least legally) differentiating between people based on family name or birth status. I mean, that goes against all the "republican" values upon which the US was founded.

In certain communities in the US, British nobility is a huge deal. Palm Beach Florida, Dallas TX, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, San Francisco CA.

It has a lot to do with certain American socialites and the prominence of cultural institutions like successful opera companies and equestrian events.

 

[Denville]

Meghan has a pretty high profile here due to the novelty factor of having had a career and being married into royalty. She is also well spoken and good in interviews.

She's not the only woman has had a career and marred a royal.. and I would question the "good in interviews"....

 

[Mbruno]

In certain communities in the US, British nobility is a huge deal. Palm Beach Florida, Dallas TX, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, San Francisco CA.

It has a lot to do with certain American socialites and the prominence of cultural institutions like successful opera companies and equestrian events.

I know, but still don't get it. In the past, the nobility was also a social class (consisting mostly of landowners with big houses) and, to some extent, it still is, at least in the UK. Some peers, especially a few dukes, marquesses and earls, are still quite rich, but, by American standards, there are far richer people in the places you cited like the Bay Area, the Upper East Side or even Palm Beach probably. I guess hereditary peers in the UK still have some residual political influence through the House of Lords (from which most of them were excluded in 1999 BTW), but, other than that, a title today is just an inherited honor that was granted by a monarch typically a long time ago as new hereditary peerages are no longer created, except for members of the Royal Family.


I get that the Duchess of Sussex has a special draw of her own because she is not nobility, but rather royalty (which is one level up), and is married to a particularly high profile prince, but the promo didn't allude to her royal status specifically, but rather solely to having "a duchess" in the event, implying that "duchess" should be considered a big deal in itself, when, for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph, it shouldn't be.

 

[Durham]

Meghan has a pretty high profile here due to the novelty factor of having had a career and being married into royalty. She is also well spoken and good in interviews.

She has her present high profile because of who she married. Not for any other reason. That amplifies her voice.

In certain communities in the US, British nobility is a huge deal. Palm Beach Florida, Dallas TX, the Upper East Side of Manhattan, San Francisco CA.

It has a lot to do with certain American socialites and the prominence of cultural institutions like successful opera companies and equestrian events.

Well if that's true they're welcome to them. More fool them.

I know, but still don't get it. In the past, the nobility was also a social class (consisting mostly of landowners with big houses) and, to some extent, it still is, at least in the UK. Some peers, especially a few dukes, marquesses and earls, are still quite rich, but, by American standards, there are far richer people in the places you cited like the Bay Area, the Upper East Side or even Palm Beach probably. I guess hereditary peers in the UK still have some residual political influence through the House of Lords (from which most of them were excluded in 1999 BTW), but, other than that, a title today is just an inherited honor that was granted by a monarch typically a long time ago as new hereditary peerages are no longer created, except for members of the Royal Family.


I get that the Duchess of Sussex has a special draw of her own because she is not nobility, but rather royalty (which is one level up), and is married to a particularly high profile prince, but the promo didn't allude to her royal status specifically, but rather solely to having "a duchess" in the event, implying that "duchess" should be considered a big deal in itself, when, for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph, it shouldn't be.

Your'e right about their wealth. Even in Britain they're no longer as a class among the wealthiest although there are a few outliers like the Duke of Westminster, Earl Cadogan, Baroness Howard De Walden & Viscount Portman but their billion pound wealth is based on owning huge chunks of central London. Hereditary rentiers. As a class they are thankfully a shadow of what they once were. A lot of us don't like what they represent & think the House of Lords is a bad joke.

I'm puzzled why some Americans are impressed by the title of duchess. And these people are meant to be progressives. Maybe someone could explain it to me. I just find it weird.

 

[Denville]

Well if that's true they're welcome to them. More fool them.

These are "old money" communities, so they are likely to mix with foreign "old money" and they share similar pastimes like horses and sailing. If people have the same lifestyle and like the same pastimes I can't see what's foolish about mixing with them.

 

[Durham]

These are "old money" communities, so they are likely to mix with foreign "old money" and they share similar pastimes like horses and sailing. If people have the same lifestyle and like the same pastimes I can't see what's foolish about mixing with them.

What's foolish is being impressed by their titles.

 

[Denville]

What's foolish is being impressed by their titles.

I doubt if American upper class people are impressed by their titles, except insofar as having a title means they come from a family with a long history.. it is more to do with sharing similar business interests and social pursuits.

 

[Durham]

I doubt if American upper class people are impressed by their titles, except insofar as having a title means they come from a family with a long history.. it is more to do with sharing similar business interests and social pursuits.

"British nobility is a huge deal". That's the quote I was commenting on. So it is about being impressed by titles.

I'm sure they do share similar interests but that's not what the original quote was about.

 

[Mbruno]

Your'e right about their wealth. Even in Britain they're no longer as a class among the wealthiest although there are a few outliers like the Duke of Westminster, Earl Cadogan, Lord Howard De Walden & Viscount Portman but their billion pound wealth is based on owning huge chunks of central London. Hereditary rentiers. As a class they are thankfully a shadow of what they once were. A lot of us don't like what they represent & think the House of Lords is a bad joke.

I'm puzzled why some Americans are impressed by the title of duchess. And these people are meant to be progressives. Maybe someone could explain it to me. I just find it weird.

Yes, it is particularly weird in the US because, as I mentioned before to the OP, the US is a republic that was founded precisely on the premises that all men are born equal, titles of nobility are not recognized and people are not distinguished on the basis of birth status or family name. Furthermore, as you said, that was not a random civic event, but a rather partisan one featuring some high profile "progressive" women (including the current VP candidate, a former presidential candidate and a former first lady of a particular party), who were supposed to be there to speak for a certain "progressive" agenda that has nothing to do with inherited nobility.

 

[Denville]

Yes, it is particularly weird in the US because, as I mentioned before to the OP, the US is a republic that was founded precisely on the premises that all men are born equal, titles of nobility are not recognized and people are not distinguished on the basis of birth status or family name. Furthermore, as you said, that was not a random civic event, but a rather partisan one featuring some high profile "progressive" women (including the current VP candidate, a former presidential candidate and a former first lady of a particular party), who were supposed to be there to speak for a certain "progressive" agenda that has nothing to do with inherited nobility.

Its not that weird. All countries have a class system and the US has a class who are "society people" who are very wealthy and who follow the same pursuits as many of the British upper class..
and as for the progressive agenda of the group that Megs speaking to, she is not impressive to them persoanlly but her title gets notice for them..

 

[Curbside]

She has her present high profile because of who she married. Not for any other reason. That amplifies her voice.

Her high profile isn’t just due to whom she married. She wasn’t “famous” but she was a savvy nascent businesswoman when she started dating Harry. Before they married, so many of the stories I read or watched about her referenced all her accomplishments before she married him.

I have an 11-year-old creative daughter and would consider Meghan a role model, just as I would Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, just for different reasons. Would I want my girl to decide to go into a difficult creative field, use it as a launching pad for activism and entrepreneurship, and find true live? Absolutely!

 

[Durham]

Yes, it is particularly weird in the US because, as I mentioned before to the OP, the US is a republic that was founded precisely on the premises that all men are born equal, titles of nobility are not recognized and people are not distinguished on the basis of birth status or family name. Furthermore, as you said, that was not a random civic event, but a rather partisan one featuring some high profile "progressive" women (including the current VP candidate, a former presidential candidate and a former first lady of a particular party), who were supposed to be there to speak for a certain "progressive" agenda that has nothing to do with inherited nobility.

What struck me as bizarre was the almost deferential nature of the other person in the interview. She was positively obsequious in the beginning. Gushing about her guest at points. Made me laugh.

 

[Curbside]

"British nobility is a huge deal". That's the quote I was commenting on. So it is about being impressed by titles.

I'm sure they do share similar interests but that's not what the original quote was about.

People are impressed or at least pay attention to titles as a novelty and can do so without wanting to go back to our wonderful colonial days. [emoji3]

Yes, it is particularly weird in the US because, as I mentioned before to the OP, the US is a republic that was founded precisely on the premises that all men are born equal, titles of nobility are not recognized and people are not distinguished on the basis of birth status or family name. Furthermore, as you said, that was not a random civic event, but a rather partisan one featuring some high profile "progressive" women (including the current VP candidate, a former presidential candidate and a former first lady of a particular party), who were supposed to be there to speak for a certain "progressive" agenda that has nothing to do with inherited nobility.

Well, we also had that generational slavery thing and innumerable instances of enforcement of a caste system here, so let’s not get carried away with the fiction of progressive ideals. [emoji3]

 

[Durham]

People are impressed or at least pay attention to titles as a novelty and can do so without wanting to go back to our wonderful colonial days. [emoji3]

But why? Surely a novelty wears off quickly?

Lots of people in Britain are most definitely not impressed by titles. Quite the opposite in fact. Titles put a lot of peoples backs up.

 

[Mbruno]

Its not that weird. All countries have a class system and the US has a class who are "society people" who are very wealthy and who follow the same pursuits as many of the British upper class..
and as for the progressive agenda of the group that Megs speaking to, she is not impressive to them persoanlly but her title gets notice for them..

Well, yes and no. There used to be this distinction in the US between "old money" and "new money", and I guess that may still matter in some schools or communities in the Northeast for example, but, generally, if you are for example a Russian immigrant who happens to have founded Google after leaving graduate school and is now one of the top 20 richest people in the world or something like that, you will be at the top of the social pyramid, I think, in the US, no matter how "new" your money is. In other words, of course the US has a class system (actually it is a highly unequal country), but it is not so much based on family origin or inherited wealth, and much less on "titles" than it is in other countries.


Furthermore, the US is a terribly celebrity-centered culture and it is getting worse everyday. So, being a celebrity sometimes is an even bigger social ticket than having money. In fact, the two often end up coming together as celebrities are normally capable of monetizing their celebrity in a market like the US. So I think the title matters to Meghan, as far as the US is concerned, only to the extent that it gives her celebrity status.

 

[Heavs]

I think a lot of people are still impressed with titles, even if they know there's no logical reason to be both in countries with aristocracy and/or Monarchy and republics. There's a reason a lot of royals who work in non royal fields want to keep using them like H&M and Martha Louise or families continue to use titles that became non legal over 100 years ago and everyone including newspapers uses them socially still. And in Britain there is still very much a class structure that has nothing to do with money and people from all walks of life might call you out on it.

It just stands out when you have people like Hilary Clinton, Kamala Harris and even Melinda Gates and Meghan is by contrast just "Duchess of Sussex" which she only was for 18 months before leaving the firm as a working royal and she achieved the title by marrying someone who would have to quite literally renounce his family if he ever took the US citizenship oath. And that is her sole reason for being there and at a progressive event at that.

 

[Denville]

Her high profile isn’t just due to whom she married. She wasn’t “famous” but she was a savvy nascent businesswoman when she started dating Harry. Before they married, so many of the stories I read or watched about her referenced all her accomplishments before she married him.

I have an 11-year-old creative daughter and would consider Meghan a role model, just as I would Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, just for different reasons. Would I want my girl to decide to go into a difficult creative field, use it as a launching pad for activism and entrepreneurship, and find true live? Absolutely!

She wasn't famous. She was in a TV show, and in a few movies.. It was her marriage to Harry that made her famous.

"British nobility is a huge deal". That's the quote I was commenting on. So it is about being impressed by titles.

I'm sure they do share similar interests but that's not what the original quote was about.

I doubt if it is a huge deal to the American well to do.. they mix with some British nobles because they turn up at the horsey events, or society events in New York or Boston.. THe people who are impressed by the "Duchess" title are probably Hollywood people who are rich

 

[Durham]

Her high profile isn’t just due to whom she married. She wasn’t “famous” but she was a savvy nascent businesswoman when she started dating Harry. Before they married, so many of the stories I read or watched about her referenced all her accomplishments before she married him.

I have an 11-year-old creative daughter and would consider Meghan a role model, just as I would Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton, just for different reasons. Would I want my girl to decide to go into a difficult creative field, use it as a launching pad for activism and entrepreneurship, and find true live? Absolutely!

It seems obvious to me that her present high profile is indisputably a direct result of her marriage but if you perceive it differently then that's cool.

If the duchess wishes to be an activist then that's her choice but it is disrespectful to the institution she married into to do so whilst using her title to amplify her voice. That's my perspective as a monarchist.

 

[Curbside]

What struck me as bizarre was the almost deferential nature of the other person in the interview. She was positively obsequious in the beginning. Gushing about her guest at points. Made me laugh.

I’ve been that PR responsible for booking people for events and such and sometimes getting a “name” to sign up for your cause is the win, not necessarily what they have to say.

What struck me as bizarre was the almost deferential nature of the other person in the interview. She was positively obsequious in the beginning. Gushing about her guest at points. Made me laugh.

She probably knows she’s looking at a treasury of clickbait to her website and it was making her giddy.

 

[Denville]

so doesnt' matter if they have anything helpful or intelligent to say? Just that they are famous for something or have a title?