The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[amaryllus]

Meghan lives in Meghan world! All Meghan All the time! No room for other ivoices Well, I guess she allows Harry a place in a corner.

I picture it something like That Being John Malkovich sequence...or the Seagulls from finding Nemo.

 

[Lilyflo]

Extracts from today's piece in The Guardian:

Campaigners hail Harry and Meghan's ‘powerful’ message on racism in UK

Dr Halima Begum, the director of the Runnymede Trust, described the the message as “compelling” and “overwhelming”. “It tells us they understand the millennial pulse; they understand what young people care about today; they understand what is right for the future of the UK.”

Lord Woolley, the director of Operation Black Vote, said structural racism was an “uncomfortable truth and the sooner we confront it the better”. The couple had a “leadership voice”. “And, in this BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement space, what they are saying to these young people, black and white, is your protest to demand structural change is 100% legitimate.”

Harry’s admission he had not been as aware as he thought should resonate with others, said Tyrek Morris, from the community youth-led group, All Black Lives UK. “It invited people to question themselves on whether they are complicit in structural racism, or if they benefit from the system. Because white privilege is very much a thing,” he said.

Gurpreet Kaur, of BLM in the Stix, which highlights racism in rural areas, said it was “heartening” to hear the couple use their influence “to highlight the issue of structural racism in the UK”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-meghan-powerful-message-structural-racism-uk

 

[Betsypaige]

The queen and Charles are too weak to crack the whip and put their foot down when it comes to Harry always has been weak and always will be. Hopefully king William will be a lot stronger than his father and granny and not let his personal relationship with relatives get in the way of protecting the monarchy.

I’m sorry? What exactly do you want them to do? Harry and Meghan are no longer working Royals, they can do pretty much what they want. Crack the whip? The Monarchy is just fine.

 

[acdc1]

Meghan lived in Britain for a matter of months. What position is she in to say how black or white Britons experience life?

Reading a column with Meghan as co-author that talks about the UK in terms of "we" is, frankly, tone deaf.

I agree. While I don’t have any issue with the message she’s wanting to send, it’s the tone and context that bothers me. It seems rather ridiculous for her, someone who lived in the UK for only 18 months and has seemingly no desire to make it her primary residence or to become a citizen, to lecture Britons about what they should or shouldn’t be doing.

 

[Prinsara]

So, during the interview Meghan mentioned she had no idea BHM existed in U.K., yet last year she apparently record letters from students (in addition to people asking on their social media) about it.
The below account is very level headed in her criticism and doesn’t support crazy conspiracy, she is also herself a biracial woman like Meghan.

Meghan: “I was in the U.K. for a few years until we moved back here, I didn’t realise that there was a Black History Month in Britain”

Also Meghan: Receives letter from school children last year as part of Black History Month and gets BP to send a reply

Which is it?

Both, probably. She meant she didn't realize that they had a Black History Month until she lived in Britain.

Extracts from today's piece in The Guardian:

Campaigners hail Harry and Meghan's ‘powerful’ message on racism in UK

Dr Halima Begum, the director of the Runnymede Trust, described the the message as “compelling” and “overwhelming”. “It tells us they understand the millennial pulse; they understand what young people care about today; they understand what is right for the future of the UK.”

Lord Woolley, the director of Operation Black Vote, said structural racism was an “uncomfortable truth and the sooner we confront it the better”. The couple had a “leadership voice”. “And, in this BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement space, what they are saying to these young people, black and white, is your protest to demand structural change is 100% legitimate.”

Harry’s admission he had not been as aware as he thought should resonate with others, said Tyrek Morris, from the community youth-led group, All Black Lives UK. “It invited people to question themselves on whether they are complicit in structural racism, or if they benefit from the system. Because white privilege is very much a thing,” he said.

Gurpreet Kaur, of BLM in the Stix, which highlights racism in rural areas, said it was “heartening” to hear the couple use their influence “to highlight the issue of structural racism in the UK”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-meghan-powerful-message-structural-racism-uk

Imagine how much more powerful and compelling it would be if they'd actually stayed in the UK, not treated it as a giant charity site.

 

[Denville]

I’m sorry? What exactly do you want them to do? Harry and Meghan are no longer working Royals, they can do pretty much what they want. Crack the whip? The Monarchy is just fine.

Well I wouldnt say the monarchy is "just fine" but there's not much teh RF can do with H and Meghan. Take away their HRH? Not likely, and tehy arre not getting any money now so there's nothing much Charles can do to rein them in...

 

[Durham]

Would you say that about members of the BRF who speak out about the homeless or unemployed youth?

In fact all elites, and that includes all royals, speak from a wealthy background of status and social inequality from which they benefit. That doesn't stop them from being patrons of organisations that try desparately to help the situation, nor should it, but speaking out for causes when you are wealthy and privileged will inevitably bring accusations of hypocrisy. So what are people who are wealthy or Royal to do? Never speak about matters that may be close to their hearts and about which they feel strongly?

Yes. It’s not their role. Their purpose is to support the monarchy or shine a light on charity.

The royal family surely is not some random ordinary elite. It’s part of the establishment.

Why do any members of the royal family need to “speak out”? As I say it’s not what they’re for. It'll just cause upset where there doesn't need to be any. There's nearly seventy million of us, we've got plenty of people to speak up about various issues. As I mentioned upthread Mark Rashford is a great example.

 

[Betsypaige]

Well I wouldnt say the monarchy is "just fine" but there's not much teh RF can do with H and Meghan. Take away their HRH? Not likely, and tehy arre not getting any money now so there's nothing much Charles can do to rein them in...

Well I would...and I did. As far as I’m concerned, the Monarchy is just fine. But, as to H and M...I agree. They are adults, they aren’t little children - and even if they were, I loathe that kind of attitude (crack the whip, make them know who’s boss, ef...). I didn’t mention it before, but I meant to....the idea that HM, Charles, W and K should all just ignore who Harry is to them, treat him as they would a stranger, not caring about any personal repercussions to their relationships is extremely misguided

 

[Durham]

The way I see it is that last March, it became officially known that Harry and Meghan no longer represented the Queen, the Firm or the monarchy in any shape or form from that time onward. Any views this couple expresses are their own and represent no one other than themselves. They've surely been taking advantage of that and its rocking the boat.

The British MPs, the British press and the British popular opinion also have the right to express their concerns and their thoughts and views but the reality is that it's going to get them nowhere at all. Harry and Meghan's view on issues have as much weight as any Brit expressing their views on things. The Sussexes actually are *allowed* to express themselves as they see fit at this time without restriction. It may not seem wise or of any benefit other than rocking that proverbial boat and causing uproars but that's the way things are now. ?

They're causing division at a very sensitive time. If members of the royal family can't unite us then there's no point in having a royal family at all.

 

[Curbside]

They're causing division at a very sensitive time. If members of the royal family can't unite us then there's no point in having a royal family at all.

I'm confused. How are they causing division?

 

[Durham]

Although Harry is a "royal Duke", the title of "Duke" itself is not a royal title. Its a peerage of the UK title. The most that could be done was to prohibit Harry and Meghan from using their "HRH" which *is* a royal form of address.

Dukedoms are no longer given out to non royals. Churchill was offered one but he turned it down - Duke of London. And Churchill was suis generis.

So the reality is that dukedoms are royal titles to all intents & purposes.

 

[Durham]

I’m sorry? What exactly do you want them to do? Harry and Meghan are no longer working Royals, they can do pretty much what they want. Crack the whip? The Monarchy is just fine.

Well they could stop giving us the dubious benefits of their opinions on British society for a start. They don't live here. We can manage well enough without their nonsensical ramblings. Spreading division. It's corrosive.

 

[Betsypaige]

Well said indeed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311925273307369472

 

[Durham]

I'm confused. How are they causing division?

Why be confused. It's obvious by the reaction to their latest comments. Why is this even being asked?

 

[Curbside]

Why be confused. It's obvious by the reaction to their latest comments. Why is this even being asked?

It's being asked because I do not know what you mean. They are causing division by calling out structural bias? By living in the USA but commenting on social issues in the UK? What do you mean?

 

[Durham]

It's being asked because I do not know what you mean. They are causing division by calling out structural bias? By living in the USA but commenting on social issues in the UK? What do you mean?

That makes sense. A fair question.

Lots of people in Britain are not interested in being lectured to by any member of the royal family. It's not their place. It's not what they're for. Indeed it causes resentment & irritation. The royal family is at its best when it is non controversial & acting as a unifying force.

Hopefully that answers your question.

 

[Osipi]

Dukedoms are no longer given out to non royals. Churchill was offered one but he turned it down - Duke of London.

So the reality is that dukedoms are royal titles to all intents & purposes.

According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/...t present there are 24,is the Duke of Norfolk.

 

[Denville]

According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/...t present there are 24,is the Duke of Norfolk.

There are no new dukedoms being given out, only royal ones. In fact there are no hereditary titles at all being given out now, because the ethos of the country is against the idea. Harry and William got dukedoms because they are royal....Harry is a Royal Duke and not an ordinary peer... for quite some time, by tradition, Royal dukes did not engage in any kind of politics or speechifying because they were not ordinary peers. That's why Edward VIII was made a royal duke because it would muzzle him...

 

[Curbside]

That makes sense. A fair question.

Lots of people in Britain are not interested in being lectured to by any member of the royal family. It's not their place. It's not what they're for. Indeed it causes resentment & irritation. The royal family is at its best when it is non controversial & acting as a unifying force.

Hopefully that answers your question.

I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree. The people who benefit the most from structural racism are the arguably the best ones to condemn it. It seems to me the point of so many charities is to foster a sense of community and open opportunities for underserved groups. Structural racism hinders opportunity, so it makes sense to me that it would and should be called out.

 

[Durham]

According to Debrett's, "At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke’s precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray’s father was created Duke of Norfolk."

I would hardly call the Duke of Norfolk "royalty". It is true though that these days, hereditary dukedoms are primarily issued to family of the monarch.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/...t present there are 24,is the Duke of Norfolk.

Yes I know. I'm not literally saying that dukedoms are royal titles. I'm saying that they are to all intents & purposes royal titles. No dukedom has been awarded to a non royal (born or married) since 1876 (& he was already a duke anyway). Only Churchill was offered one in the C20th & he was suis generis.

Dukedoms are only awarded now to members of the royal family.

We're both right.

 

[Durham]

I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree. The people who benefit the most from structural racism are the arguably the best ones to condemn it. It seems to me the point of so many charities is to foster a sense of community and open opportunities for underserved groups. Structural racism hinders opportunity, so it makes sense to me that it would and should be called out.

I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I have no doubt that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.

 

[Denville]

Yes I know. I'm not literally saying that dukedoms are royal titles. I'm saying that they are to all intents & purposes royal titles. No dukedom has been awarded to a non royal (born or married) since 1876 (& he was already a duke anyway). Only Churchill was offered one & he was suis generis.

Dukedoms are only awarded now to members of the royal family.

We're both right.

and Churchill turned it down. harry would not have his title if he weren't a member of the RF

 

[Curbside]

I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I would say that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.

It's kind of sad that the idea of eradicating structural racism is seen as political, but, it is what it is.

 

[Osipi]

and Churchill turned it down. harry would not have his title if he weren't a member of the RF

I'm not disputing that Harry is a royal duke. The point I was trying to make responding to KellyAtLast when she said to discontinue H&M's "royal title". Its my understanding that the title of "Duke" is not a royal title per se but rather a title denoting a peer of the UK. ?

Its all good.

 

[Durham]

It's kind of sad that the idea of eradicating structural racism is seen as political, but, it is what it is.

I think that's unfair. It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Durham]

I'm not disputing that Harry is a royal duke. The point I was trying to make responding to KellyAtLast when she said to discontinue H&M's "royal title". Its my understanding that the title of "Duke" is not a royal title per se but rather a title denoting a peer of the UK. ?

Its all good.

We're all a bit correct.

The big question is would we accept a dukedom if we were offered one?

 

[Osipi]

We're all a bit correct.

The big question is would we accept a dukedom if we were offered one?

Not me. I already have an impressive title. I'm the Queen of Procrastinators. I was even going to write a book about it but never got around to it.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Both, probably. She meant she didn't realize that they had a Black History Month until she lived in Britain.



Imagine how much more powerful and compelling it would be if they'd actually stayed in the UK, not treated it as a giant charity site.

Meh, that's an excuse. If I, as a non brit or black/biracial was able to assume that Britain had a BHM, you would think an educated American biracial who spoke (sparingly, very sparingly) about racism in the past, would be able to assume the same.

The reality is: Meghan never really cared (nor cares) about blacks or racism, unless she can use it for PR, like all those white actors who did blackout Tuesday a couple months ago... all talk, no action.
She went through two BHM while living in the UK (plus potentially during her visits to see Harry or casually vacationing in the UK), did she not read the papers or saw anything online about it? yet, not a single word.


Yes, I think Meghan, if she had been sincere about making change and doing good, could have been a true force for good. But that's not what she's about.

Like the latest list, or the vogue cover, are there any doctors? lawyers? people in education? civil right, or general charity, activist? mp's (okay that may be problematic since it can be seen as political), scientists? on that list?
According to the responds I have seen, the answer is no, but maybe I missed something?

I think I would characterise this as a cultural impasse. We can both see the other's opinion but can't agree to agree. Fair enough.

As a British monarchist I have no doubt that a politicised royal family opens a can of worms.

If I am not mistaken, the last time that can of worm was opened a British king lost his head, and the crown - for awhile anyway.

 

[Somebody]

I personally think the timing of Harry & Meghan's interview with the Evening Standard is what driving the "controversy". As I posted earlier, the report on "white working class boys" falling behind in school makes some people questioned Harry & Meghan's "alleged" opinions on "white privilege", "male privilege" or "decolonise curriculum".

Some people believed that Harry and Meghan are somewhat "working against the government's interest" in terms of culture. There are some backbencher MPs retweeting criticism of Harry and Meghan, which includes the statistic by Matt Goodwin on the 9% of poorest white boys making into university. For example Ben Bradley MP retweeting this

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311737777290084352

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311735249651597313

One benefit of this interview in that case might be that many more people hear about the issue of the low-SES white boys than otherwise might have learned about it

 

[Somebody]

The way I see it is that last March, it became officially known that Harry and Meghan no longer represented the Queen, the Firm or the monarchy in any shape or form from that time onward. Any views this couple expresses are their own and represent no one other than themselves. They've surely been taking advantage of that and its rocking the boat.

The British MPs, the British press and the British popular opinion also have the right to express their concerns and their thoughts and views but the reality is that it's going to get them nowhere at all. Harry and Meghan's view on issues have as much weight as any Brit expressing their views on things. The Sussexes actually are *allowed* to express themselves as they see fit at this time without restriction. It may not seem wise or of any benefit other than rocking that proverbial boat and causing uproars but that's the way things are now. ?

I don't agree. He is still one major accident away from the throne. So, I don't think it is right to both keep your succession rights AND make it your 'independent job' to advocate your personal and sometimes politically-charged views as much as possible to the largest audience possible; and even using your royal titles to do so.