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

[muriel]

IMHO, this was very political.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...stinians-west-bank-middle-east-visit-ramallah

That visit was at the behest of the FCO, and any political leanings were those of HM's government.

 

[solinka]

True.. if they want a quiet stress-free life, this sis not the way to go about it. If they take sides politically they are going to get criticized for what they say, for getting engaged in politics at all, for how they put their viewpoint.. etc etc.

The problem is not in being criticized.

I am talking about double standards that are applied to the royals, depending on whether they are liked or disliked. Here is an example:
prince William appeared on the front page of a magazine dedicated to LGBT people and their issues, if Meghan did that she would be accused of being ''too woke, typical californian liberal girl, luvvie...

 

[Heavs]

Wasn't there some debate about the fact that Diana picked the landmine issue because it was so controversial (although not partisan to UK politics) and she wanted to cause a sensation by doing it?

I personally do not want any royal whether they vote or not to stand up and say "I love Boris Johnson/Keir Starmer/Jeremy Corbyn/Nicola Sturgeon" or even "I believe in the Monster Raving Loony Party!" Just no. Even when allowed to sit in the House of Lords the Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Kent and Gloucester were crossbenchers, as was Earl Snowden. And David Linley withdrew his candidacy for a by election to the HoL due to pressure from BP.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Honestly I didn't like the look of the interior at all... it looked overly ornate and so does the outside...

But that’s the Mediterranean style (south France, Italy, Spain),
The all white does not fit (and in a way fights) with the style the house was build in.

 

[Denville]

The problem is not in being criticized.

I am talking about double standards that are applied to the royals, depending on whether they are liked or disliked. Here is an example:
prince William appeared on the front page of a magazine dedicated to LGBT people and their issues, if Meghan did that she would be accused of being ''too woke, typical californian liberal girl, luvvie...

Im sure some people would criticize William for the LGBT magazine because they don't agree with these issues being publicized or with same sex marriage or the like.

And Meghan's making it very clear that she's on a particular side in US politics which is NOT allwoed to the RF in the UK....

Wasn't there some debate about the fact that Diana picked the landmine issue because it was so controversial (although not partisan to UK politics) and she wanted to cause a sensation by doing it?

I personally do not want any royal whether they vote or not to stand up and say "I love Boris Johnson/Keir Starmer/Jeremy Corbyn/Nicola Sturgeon" or even "I believe in the Monster Raving Loony Party!" Just no. Even when allowed to sit in the House of Lords the Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Kent and Gloucester were crossbenchers, as was Earl Snowden. And David Linley withdrew his candidacy for a by election to the HoL due to pressure from BP.

I've never heard of this about Diana. I think she wasn't that well up on politics anyway.. and was wary of being criticized as political because she knew that however innocently to be seen as political would damage her popularity. She took up the Landmines issue from a humanitarian point of view...

 

[evolvingdoors]

IMHO, this was very political.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...stinians-west-bank-middle-east-visit-ramallah

How was this “very political”?

 

[Mbruno]

[...]

The Queen keeps her neutrality, but she acts on the advice of whichever party is in government and the responsibility for her actions taken under ministerial advice lies with the ministers, not with her personally. And, in any circumstamce, she will separate government advice and her state role to act according to it from partisan activity. No minister who understands the conventions will put her in a difficult position of having to take a partisan stand. When BJ did something remotely similar with the prorogation of Parliament during the Brexit standoff, he was heavily criticized for it and the courts actually stepped in to reverse the Queen's order, which was a major decision. In any case, should the Queen be in the aforementioned situation of actually being asked to be partisan rather than simply following the policy of the democratically elected government , she could actually refuse a minister's request, but it is a very delicate balance.


All the aforementioned situations are very different from Meghan's case.



In fact, that is what most Americans, who grew up in a different system of government, do not understand. Royals, when it comes to political opinions, cannot have a voice of their own and, at best, they must keep it to themselves. They may talk generically about humanitarian causes or social issues, but that is pretty much it. They can't be seen to be actually trying to influence actual state policy because that would amount to usurping the government's or Parliament's democratic mandate based on their own undemocratic, hereditary position. And they can't certainly favor party X, Y or Z, because they have to work with any party that the people chooses to govern or send to Parliament.



It might look terrible for an American to be in that position ("voiceless" in that sense), but the system is what it is.

 

[QueenMathilde]

The problem is not in being criticized.

I am talking about double standards that are applied to the royals, depending on whether they are liked or disliked. Here is an example:
prince William appeared on the front page of a magazine dedicated to LGBT people and their issues, if Meghan did that she would be accused of being ''too woke, typical californian liberal girl, luvvie...

LBGT isn't political. The American presidential campaign is. They need to give up their titles.

 

[Heavs]

William's tour actually shows how he (or another member of the BRF) was able to go to several different places with vastly differing points of view, vastly different tones and expectations (fun watching football in CP Hussein's man cave to Yad Vashem for example), lots of ancient and modern issues and juggle them, looking interested and sympathetic in all of them whilst the FCO achieved whatever it was they wanted BTS. It's much harder to do that smoothly if you've made your position on where you stand on these issues clear as part of a political platform.

Harry and Meghan also did the same in Morocco, albeit not juggling quite so many heated political situations. But the glamour good will and hard work of a successful royal tour whilst the government conducted it's trade and political talks.

 

[Denville]

I suppose it was political, but as MARG said, it was not William's politics, but a foreign policy position of the British government. William was on an official visit on behalf of the FCO and said what the FCO instructed him to say.



Tha

In fact, that is what most Americans, who grew up in a different system of government, do not understand. Royals, when it comes to political opinions, cannot have a voice of their own and, at best, they must keep it to themselves. They may talk generically about humanitarian causes or social issues, but that is pretty much it. They can't be seen to be actually trying to influence actual state policy because that would amount to usurping the government's or Parliament's democratic mandate based on their own undemocratic, hereditary position. And they can't certainly favor party X, Y or Z, because they have to work with any party that the people chooses to govern or send to Parliament.



It might look terrible for an American to be in that position ("voiceless" in that sense), but the system is what it is.

Well they are Not voiceless. THey DO have access to politicians and people in Govt, and the rationale is that (a) they cannot be seen to favour one party above another and (b) they DO have a voice to put forward ideas and suggestions but they must exercise it with great discretion. So for Meghan to compare Harry "not being able to vote" with say African Americans being denied the vote in many places up to the 1960s, is just wrong.
The only excuse is that she presumably doesn't understand the system in the UK and thinks that the 2 cases of "not having a vote" are similar...

 

[Denville]

LBGT isn't political. The American presidential campaign is. They need to give up their titles.

They are not going to, they can't as they are going to have to use those titles to make money... If Meg were to run for office, however she would have ot do so as Meghan Markle or M Mountbatten Windsor....

 

[Mbruno]

Well they are Not voiceless. THey DO have access to politicians and people in Govt, and the rationale is that (a) they cannot be seen to favour one party above another and (b) they DO have a voice to put forward ideas and suggestions but they must exercise it with great discretion. So for Meghan to compare Harry "not being able to vote" with say African Americans being denied the vote in many places up to the 1960s, is just wrong.
The only excuse is that she presumably doesn't understand the system in the UK and thinks that the 2 cases of "not having a vote" are similar...

Agreed, but when Meghan talks about "a voice", she is clearly speaking about a public voice, not a discreet backdoor influence.


In the 19th century (the Victorian constitution), there was that principle of the monarch having the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, which I suppose still is in the textbooks today, but QEII does not have a relationship with her ministers as Queen Victoria did and I am inclined to believe that the right of contemporary monarchs in some European countries (the UK included) is far more along the lines of the right "to be informed" (as written in the Swedish constitution) than to be consulted. I am pretty sure the Queen shares her wisdom and life experience in her audiences with the PM, but I am not sure she is that much "consulted" or, "warns" and "counsels" for that matter.



In an unwritten constitution system like in the UK, there isn't a clear answer to the limits of the monarch's rights or how he/she should exercise them. The article below for example puts forward a point of view that is somewhat different from (even contrarian to) mine, while agreeing with me in other points.


https://www.commonwealthroundtable....hts-to-be-consulted-to-encourage-and-to-warn/


PS: The full paper is available to subscribers and discusses the position of GGs in the Commonwealth too, which is what interests me the most as I have a personal liking for Canada in particular.

 

[Denville]

Agreed, but when Meghan talks about "a voice", she is clearly speaking about a public voice, not a discreet backdoor influence.


In the 19th century (the Victorian constitution), there was that principle of the monarch having the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, which I suppose still is in the textbooks today, but QEII does not have a relationship with her ministers as Queen Victoria did and I am inclined to believe that the right of contemporary monarchs in some European countries (the UK included) is far more along the lines of the right "to be informed" (as written in the Swedish constitution) than to be consulted. I am pretty sure the Queen shares her wisdom and life experience in her audiences with the PM, but I am not sure she is that much "consulted" or, "warns" and "counsels" for that matter.



I

https://www.commonwealthroundtable....hts-to-be-consulted-to-encourage-and-to-warn/

Yes I know what Meg means.. but I'm just explaining (as other have done) the rationale as to why the RF are not supposed to get political or favour one party, and why they do not vote. IMO to compare Harry's not being able to vote as akin to the brutal suppression of African American voting rights, up to the 1960s, is so completely wrong. It seem as if she doesn't understand that....That is the only excuse for her saying such things. But really if she's trying to advise and encourage people to vote, she SHOULD take the trouble to get things right.

 

[Sun Lion]

Do the pictures from the royal houses website, the one his run by the same media company that owns Meghan Mirror, are still up?

And i’m not even remotely surprised, if they wanted privacy and ppl not knowing how the house looks like they would have made sure to clear them first before leaking and confirming the purchase and move..
They left them up just long enough for the media and social media accounts to save and run them.


Personally, looking at the few screenshots we got from their videos of pure white (or as I call that look “boring cold as ice nouveau riche look”, I like the old design better, it fits the house better, and has soul and warmth.

I don't know about the "Meghan Mirror" site evolvingdoors, but a lot of websites no longer have photos up - real-estate websites and Pinterest sites.

I just came across a site with fifty HD photos.

Some familiar and some "new" - different parts of the garden, different angles of some of the rooms. I expect that to disappear from the internet soon.

But I also found a very long, very detailed, description of the property that I'll post some points from. I won't link to this site as it contains the address.

This is from an article from before the Duke and Duchess of Sussex became the owners.

The care, and attention to detail the original owners put in, is quite astounding.

* Panoramic ocean and mountain views.
* Seven 13th Century limestone mantelpieces imported from France.
* Antique terra cotta tiles imported from France.
* Limestone imported from France laid for the foyer flooring.
* An antique fountain.
* A creek runs through the grounds.
* Hicory pecan wood flooring.
* Five car garage.
* Four seat bar in the billiard room.
* A cedar sauna.
* An elevator.
* Heated floors - as well as the fog and sun sensors noted previously.
* Ceilings between ten and sixteen feet high.
* Wrought iron lanterns custom-designed.
* Clipped hedges and stone-pillared entry gates.
* Hand-cut Santa Barbara stone for the entry lane and garden steps.
* The olive trees are a hundred years old.

(Plus all the other amenities noted in previous posts, a tea-house, guest-house, playground, tennis court, pool, outdoor pizza oven, wine-cellar, gym, fire-place in the bathroom.)

No wonder the Duke and Duchess bought it.

 

[solinka]

How was this “very political”?

Article says;


At one point the duke told Abbas he was “very glad that our two countries work so closely together” – a break with diplomatic protocol, which does not refer to the Palestinian Authority as a country.

 

[duchessrachel]

Actually, Diana activelly participated in the campaign against landmines a year before she died. This is a highly politically charged issue.

A million dollar question: If Meghan and Harry were supporting conservative political options (Trump and republicans) would people , especially Daily mail
readers still complain about using royal platform for expressing one's political views?
This is a rhetorical question.

I am a conservative Republican and I would still be upset if they supported a Republican ticket. As members of the BRF who use their titles to get noticed, they should not get involved in American politics. If they want to renounce their titles and support whomever, as ordinary citizens, that is fine.

 

[Hallo girl]

Actually, Diana activelly participated in the campaign against landmines a year before she died. This is a highly politically charged issue.

A million dollar question: If Meghan and Harry were supporting conservative political options (Trump and republicans) would people , especially Daily mail
readers still complain about using royal platform for expressing one's political views?
This is a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical or not I will answer it.

YES.

Royals do not get involved in politics.

Harry knows that.

Regardless of what newspaper I read.

 

[tommy100]

Actually, Diana activelly participated in the campaign against landmines a year before she died. This is a highly politically charged issue.

A million dollar question: If Meghan and Harry were supporting conservative political options (Trump and republicans) would people , especially Daily mail
readers still complain about using royal platform for expressing one's political views?
This is a rhetorical question.

The difference is landmines was an issue that saved peoples lives and was politically neutral in some ways as it wasn't supporting or against any one political party here in the UK. It may have been controversial but it wasn't truly "party political".

And yes I think they would be the same comments no matter what party side they were on, because we have seen plenty of examples over the years of this being so, e.g. HM reportedly saying she was glad the UK left the EU.

 

[Denville]

Rhetorical or not I will answer it.

YES.

Royals do not get involved in politics.

Harry knows that.

Regardless of what newspaper I read.

Does Harry know it though? or perhaps he did know it but thinks that now he's in the US and he and Meghan aren't full time Royals, they dont "count" any more and can talk politiclaly

 

[Helen.CH]

Whoever suggested this one-year-review was a wise person
and this review will be really interesting if not beforehand measures will be initiated.

 

[Mbruno]

Does Harry know it though? or perhaps he did know it but thinks that now he's in the US and he and Meghan aren't full time Royals, they dont "count" any more and can talk politiclaly

To be fair, Harry has shown more restraint. Most of the recent controversy involved Meghan going solo as when she basically invited herself to the 19th's event.



In fact, Harry has been fading in the background lately under Meghan's light. Even their biography Finding Freedom was in the end all about Meghan.

 

[acdc1]

To be fair, Harry has shown more restraint. Most of the recent controversy involved Meghan going solo as when she basically invited herself to the 19th's event.



In fact, Harry has been fading in the background lately under Meghan's light. Even their biography Finding Freedom was in the end all about Meghan,

Harry has mostly just been parroting whatever Meghan believes and going on and on about the evils of social media. I’m thinking he probably has stayed out of the political arena right now because he’s not an American and can’t vote, and maybe he still has a bit of restraint and doesn’t want to get embroiled in anything too big. I think Meghan is beyond caring what the royal family thinks about her actions and is more of a loose cannon.

 

[Denville]

Harry has mostly just been parroting whatever Meghan believes and going on and on about the evils of social media. I’m thinking he probably has stayed out of the political arena right now because he’s not an American and can’t vote, and maybe he still has a bit of restraint and doesn’t want to get embroiled in anything too big. I think Meghan is beyond caring what the royal family thinks about her actions and is more of a loose cannon.

Agree, maybe he is a bit more wary but He does seem to be following her lead and agreeing with her general political attitude.
I just wonder though is he really aware that as a royal, politics was a "no no", and that if they ever want to go back, it might be wiser to tone down the political stuff? If he was aware of it, did he pass it on to Meghan and say something like "Until the review is over maybe we should be cautious about making political speeches." I can't make Harry out, I sometimes think he is almsot as unaware of the role of Royals as MEghan is, with less excuse...

 

[duchessrachel]

Whoever suggested this one-year-review was a wise person
and this review will be really interesting if not beforehand measures will be initiated.

Yes, it will be very interesting. It would not surprise me either that if Meghan become more political, measures might be taken by the RF before then.

 

[Mbruno]

Agree, maybe he is a bit more wary but He does seem to be following her lead and agreeing with her general political attitude.
I just wonder though is he really aware that as a royal, politics was a "no no", and that if they ever want to go back, it might be wiser to tone down the political stuff? If he was aware of it, did he pass it on to Meghan and say something like "Until the review is over maybe we should be cautious about making political speeches." I can't make Harry out, I sometimes think he is almsot as unaware of the role of Royals as MEghan is, with less excuse...

Meghan seems to have burned the bridges, but I feel Harry might still consider he might go back one day, even if he now looks like he is following Meghan's lead like a puppy.



Besides, as others said, Meghan is "home" and comfortable in her familiar environment. For Harry, it is the opposite: he is in a foreign land where he is not a citizen and has no official status, which is something totally new for him. In a way, it is the reverse of the situation the couple was in back in the UK, but worse now for Harry than it was for Meghan in Britain. At least in my opinion (some other posters think Meghan was miserable in the UK because of "the way she was treated").

 

[Denville]

Me

Besides, as others said, Meghan is "home" and comfortable in her familiar environment. For Harry, it is the opposite: he is in a foreign land where he is not a citizen and has no official status, which is something totally new for him. In a way, it is the reverse of the situation the couple was in back in the UK, but worse now for Harry than it was for Meghan in Britain. At least in my opinion (some other posters think Meghan was miserable in the UK because of "the way she was treated").

I think he might want to go back one day.. so if that's the case, he might feel (as I'm sure he sees it as him and M going back together) that he should gently restrain her a little. I agree, I think he is a bit lost. He is trying to fit in with his wife's views, and agrees with her.. but he's not saying that much...I think that its all gone to her head like wine though.. She seems to be eagerly embracing being free of royal restrictions and dabbling her toes in politics, partly I suppose out of genuine interest and partly because it keeps them noticed
I do think more and more, maybe this was what she wanted all along and saw a year or 2 in the UK doing royal work, as a necessary evil to raise her profile from TV actress to Royal Duchess and well known.
Maybe she went into the job thinking "It might work out, and if it doesn't, we'll get out and go back to the US." and I thinks she found it was a lot more dull and drear than she expected, she got a lot of hassle, she had spats with the RF and their staff and she just did not want to put up with any more of it...
And Harry seems to have never told her that they couldn't be half and halfers, they couldn't make money and be royals, whether he did not really understand it himself or he did but he didn't want to tell her that, I dnt know.

 

[acdc1]

I’m sure this has all been a whirlwind for Harry... he’s been in a very structured environment his whole life... first by being born into the royal family, then at boarding school, in the army, and as a working royal. I don’t think he really had to think much for himself. Sure, he developed projects that he worked hard at and it was obvious he truly was passionate about (Sentebele and Invictus Games) but I don’t think he’s ever had to think about many deeper issues like racism, politics, and other things that Meghan is really interested. I think that it’s great that he’s learning and growing, but he really seems out of his comfort zone and following his wife around like a puppy, just echoing her viewpoints of things.

I think Meghan is firmly in her element right now... she finally has a platform to Use her voice and say and do things that she didn’t when she was a little-known actress on a cable tv show. She really got everything she wanted: the fairytale princess wedding, skyrocketed to fame, a platform to push her political and social agenda, fans and followers who adore her, and now a California mansion to build her new brand. Harry is the one who lost out... he lost his extended family, the only life he’s ever known, structure... I hope that he is able to come out of this. I fear that he is going to really struggle as time moves on. The positive of all of this is that they do love each other and have a beautiful little boy together.

 

[RandyDrx]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-secret-Hollywood-project-network-execs.html

Now they want to be Hollywood royalty! Prince Harry and Meghan Markle 'are pitching a top secret project to network execs and intend to serve as joint producers'

• Sources say Meghan and Harry have been shopping their idea around since June
• The former royal couple were said to have met with 'numerous' media companies, including NBC Universal
• The concept and intended format of the project have yet to be revealed
• Harry and Meghan reportedly intend to serve as joint producers on the venture

For a guy who wants privacy and once said "Every time I see a camera, every time I hear a click, it reminds me of my mother", he sure didn't hesitate to move to paparazzi central and do projects that involve cameras and social media.

 

[Hallo girl]

Does Harry know it though? or perhaps he did know it but thinks that now he's in the US and he and Meghan aren't full time Royals, they dont "count" any more and can talk politiclaly

I agree Denville, the correct thing to say was Harry should know that.

More and more I believe he cannot think for himself, he went from school to the military then had staff to think and do for him.
For the first time in his life he has no support from the BRF, I do not refer to money with that comment , but has to think and do for himself. As a result IMO Meghan has stepped in to the role.

 

[Helen.CH]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-secret-Hollywood-project-network-execs.html



For a guy who wants privacy and once said "Every time I see a camera, every time I hear a click, it reminds me of my mother", he sure didn't hesitate to move to paparazzi central and do projects that involve cameras and social media.

yeah, I can imagine Meghan meeting the stars in a latenightshow
oh excuse me of course it would be " the duchess holds court"
only Fergie missing to make it a full catastrophy. but seriously this would be Meghan's style isn't it, her deciding who may meet her, a little chitchat, on screen, maybe she thinks she can be the next Ellen or Oprah ?