Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 2: December 2018 - February 2019


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The bits of the letter I saw were heartbreaking. It's clear she'd tried to do right by her father but he let her down badly (& then lied about it). I hope Prince Charles is acting as a fatherly figure to her - Camilla says people don't realise how kind he is.
 
There's a lot of people in the BRF that could sit around with Meghan and relate stories about what they've gone though and that is what I think is probably the biggest support system that Meghan can have right now. They've been there, done that, had rolls aimed at their heads and survived. They can be empathetic rather than just sympathetic.

Charles once said a long, long time ago that "they're turning us into a bloody soap opera". This is true today and they'll weather it out as a family. Meghan is where she needs to be. ;)

Harry was right stating that Meghan has the family she's never had before.
 
Last edited:
well as soon as the news of their dating became public, Samantha Markle did everything she could to separate them. She was all over twitter saying Meghan was not a good match for Harry, blah blah blah, and back then her racism, Hate, and jealousy was already apparent especially the foul language she used when talking about Doria. Once the engagement became public, she pivoted and went on the route of cashing in on the relationship. These people were despicable from the get go, case in point the Thomas jr's open letter asking Harry to cancel th wedding while criticizing his so called half sister as an arriviste social climber no good potential wife for Harry.
 
The thing with legal action though about the letter is that they would need Meghan's consent as author of the letter to prosecute her father (and the publishers) and to be honest, I don't see her going that route. It would just seriously make matters worse and more fodder for the tabloids to feed on.

I'm willing to bet the crumbs from my last turkey sandwich on rye that the letter Meghan did send to her father wasn't just dashed out in the deep of the night but carefully composed and each word selected to drive home her points with the knowledge that it was quite possible that it all would end up in the press.

What made me seriously question Mr. Markle is his rant about Harry having to be behind her words. I'll admit to checking things around the net and there are quite a few Americans that reacted to "down the rabbit hole" being solely British. It isn't.

Give this man enough rope and eventually he'll hang himself with it. He's acting on emotions and it shows. :D

When Meghan did promotion for Suits on Dave TV channel, she used the phrase ‘down the rabbit hole’. In the YouTube video link below, approximately 1:23


The quiz on Britishness seems extra cute now, with all the life changing events that have occurred in her life since. ?
 
Last edited:
Down the rabbit hole is not that unusual in US. I’ve heard it and I’ve used it. Nice try though.
 
When Meghan did promotion for Suits on Dave TV channel, she used the phrase ‘down the rabbit hole’. In the YouTube video link below, approximately 1:23


The quiz on Britishness seems extra cute now, with all the life changing events that have occurred in her life since. ��

Thanks for finding this video proof that The Duchess has used this 'down the rabbit hole" phrase before she met Prince Harry. I knew I had heard her use the phrase in one of the videos on the internet, but couldn't think of where to find it.
 
Down the rabbit hole is not that unusual in US. I’ve heard it and I’ve used it. Nice try though.


Isn't that a quote from "Alice in Wonderland"? Why should an American not use that?
 
This is an interesting documentary by Hiut Denim and the impact of the Duchess of Sussex.

Today I watched the whole video. The first time I saw in another post, I was busy so I just browsed. This is a very heart warming story about the Hiut Denim Co. and how Meghan wearing their jeans boosted their business allowing them to expand and employ more people; how wonderful.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for finding this video proof that The Duchess has used this 'down the rabbit hole" phrase before she met Prince Harry. I knew I had heard her use the phrase in one of the videos on the internet, but couldn't think of where to find it.

Her body language shift when asked about Wales makes me think she had just met Harry. Clearly very early days but still funny. ?

Also great seeing the POV of a company that was directly impacted by Meghan. They were trying to play catch up for months from the back orders and how that could have actually hurt them but luckily they were able to expand.

You don't always hear that side of it.
 
Isn't that a quote from "Alice in Wonderland"? Why should an American not use that?

Apparently that's another way for Thomas Markle to blame someone else for his own actions. It's all Harry's fault now. :bang:
 
This is an interesting documentary by Hiut Denim and the impact of the Duchess of Sussex.

Her body language shift when asked about Wales makes me think she had just met Harry. Clearly very early days but still funny. ?

Also great seeing the POV of a company that was directly impacted by Meghan. They were trying to play catch up for months from the back orders and how that could have actually hurt them but luckily they were able to expand.

You don't always hear that side of it.


Wonderful story. If only the Duchess was willing to wear British fashion more often than she currently does, we would be able to hear a lot more stories like this!
 
Last edited:
Great film about Hiut jeans & the link with Meghan - thank you for posting it.
 
This is an extract from the article but it contains everything she is supposed to have said:
"When the Duchess of Sussex visited City University in London on one of her first outings as patron of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) this month, her enthusiasm for change became clear. After hearing a presentation from Meera Sabaratnam, who is leading a push to decolonise the curriculum at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas), the duchess responded animatedly.

'Just open up that conversation so we are talking about it as opposed to continuing with that daily rote ... sometimes that approach can be really antiquated and needs an update,' she said.

On the same visit she was visibly surprised to learn about the lack of black and female professors in British universities. She reportedly said 'Oh my God' when she was shown a sheet of data showing that UK professors were overwhelmingly white men."

------------------------

The article sounds like a storm in a teacup to me but it's yet another thing she must be on her guard against because any political comments she makes will be jumped on.

I wouldn't characterize the way Meghan is championing diversity and openness in education surrounding curriculum and faculty as necessarily aggressively 'political.' It strikes me as her taking a practical and forward-thinking approach to advocating for inclusivity and student awareness and involvement in all aspects of their higher education. Why is that positive stance by Meghan being marginalized and targeted as controversial and/or political?

... Regarding the Times story about ACU: Meghan's comment and her having Amy take a pic of the diversity stats were reported at the time of the engagement...so why is the Times re-reporting it again now? And not just that, but with a LOT of editorializing at that...

If Meghan is, or will be, championing this issue, I am very excited! When I was attending uni in the UK, I was shocked by the lack of diversity in faculty, curriculums and student body---even compared to my not IMO very diverse school in the US.I remember student organizing at the time on campus around the issue, as a matter of fact. I am glad to see this conversation being elevated and its a great issue for Meghan especially to speak about given her own experiences and background.

ITA. I'm very glad to see Meghan taking a stand on issues she is passionate about that really have to do with encouraging intellectual curiosity, while leaving no stone unturned in the pursuit to better oneself and also contribute to one's community.

Meghan naturally and gracefully taking a stand in this way reminds me of the imperatives expressed by writer and educator, bell hooks [aka Gloria Watkins]. In a critical study of hooks' writings, Cornell West contends: "bell hooks' unique contribution to intellectual life, American letters and 'Black' thought ... proposes a singular human struggle to be candid about one's self and contestatory toward dehumanizing forces in the world..."

At the same time, hooks herself suggests the importance of dissecting and filtering standardized academic texts that have been "used as instruments of domination, elitism, and classism..." e.g., hooks has said that she "takes what is nurturing from the work of educator and philosopher, Paulo Freire, [while] choosing to overlook the sexist elements in his writing." In turn "hooks' own writings express the struggle for survival in a racist, sexist, and classist society. The pain of hooks' marginality and oppression of spirit echoes the pain of any who have dared to claim an identity beyond cultural designations... hooks advocates communities of solidarity in the struggle toward mutual growth, [and] a recognition of differences as opposed to the suppression of dissenting voices..." -- Namulundah Florence in bell hooks' Engaged Pedagogy: A Transgressive Education for Critical Consciousness (1998).

Indeed, the bolded descriptions above are what I think Meghan is doing in a natural, unaffected way. That the negative, slanted reporting in The Times fails to see these transparent, inclusive and positive qualities in Meghan, is sadly to their own detriment. The Times is rather very much on the defensive truly. And that headline they created, 'male, pale, stale,' simply reeks of their own false, presumptuous sense of threatened superiority and entitlement. Yet, as Meghan wrote in the letter to her father: "… a lie can't live forever.” And as @Osipi noted, “… the truth will win out in the end.”
 
Last edited:
That the negative, slanted reporting in The Times fails to see these transparent, inclusive and positive qualities in Meghan, is sadly to their own detriment. The Times is rather very much on the defensive truly. And that headline they created, 'male, pale, stale,' simply reeks of their own sense of threatened superiority and entitlement. Yet, as Meghan wrote in the letter to her father: "… a lie can't live forever.” And as @Osipi noted, “… the truth will win out in the end.”
There is also friendly description of the same subject :flowers: Enjoy!
https://www.hellomagazine.com/royal...-markle-campaign-against-racism-in-education/
 
Wonderful story. If only the Duchess was willing to wear British fashion more often than she currently does, we would be able to hear a lot more stories like this!

Well thanks to JuliannaVictoria for reposting the Huit Denim documentary! To the contrary @muriel, I would frame it as, Why can't the media focus on all of the positive work and wonderful impacts we are seeing from the influential representation and humanitarian efforts of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and many other British royals? That lame 'British fashion' carping and shaming toward Meghan is so old, tired, and empty.

On a positive note, I'd like to point out that bell hooks is not only an academic, philosophic, and cultural writer. She is also a poet. Her book of poems, When Angels Speak of Love (2007), contains enchanting lyrics that to me coincidentally echo and reflect the Meghan & Harry love story:

love go straight to my heart
beat beat
alive and more alive
oh time before words
and i can still remember
each touch
all every bit tenderness
only one pain
a cry to make it be
always endless bliss


in him
my twin likeness ...
a diary of enchantment
his hands hold mine
keep me standing firm
ground my heart
the angel eye of love
stands guard
protects our union ...


in love
there are no closed doors
each threshold
an invitation
to cross
take hold
take heart
and enter here
at this point
where truth
was once denied
 
Last edited:
I *hope* this is lisable...

"The Duchess of Sussex has supported a campaign by Black Academics and Students to 'decolonise the curriculum' and confront the legacy of Empire and racism on University campuses in her first apparently political intervention since joining the Royal family.

The movement to add black and female thinkers and writers -rather than focusing on the 'pale,male and stale' has been hugely controversial since campaigners tried to topple a statue of the Victorian Imperialist Cecil Rhodes at Oxford three years ago.

One of her first engagements at ACU the duchess encouraged scholars to 'open up the conversation' about what is taught at universities. She added that the existing way of doing things 'can be really antiquated'. Just open up that conversation so we are talking about it, as opposed to continuing with that daily rote.. sometimes that can be really antiquated and needs an update'

The rest of the front page article continues with details of the baby, and biographical details of the Duchess prior to marrying into the BRF.
The entirety of the article is on the inside pages which [alas] I cannot access , but I hope this gives you a flavour?


Quite frankly I don't know that academia in the U.S. is that much more diverse. Perhaps some. I know at the college I attended in the 90's (small liberal arts university) had almost no racial diversity among professors and just a few women (honestly most of them I had I did not care for) ...fast forward 20 years...I don't know that it's really any more diverse.

That all said, I am not a fan of diversity just for the sake of diversity. Qualifications should trump everything else.



LaRae
 
Pranter said:
... I am not a fan of diversity just for the sake of diversity. Qualifications should trump everything else.

:previous:

Of course @Pranter. But by forefronting that concern you appear to be making an assumption that certain groups of people based on their skin color somehow are statistically less 'qualified' than others. I don't think that's true.

Various requirements and thoughtful decisionmaking should always come into play when hiring faculty. I think the point is that qualified people of color have historically been excluded. And that should change without any 'false' fear of standards being lowered!
 
Last edited:
I have said nothing about any groups....I think diversity for the sake of diversity 'oh we must have a minority professor even if they don't have the qualifications that the other candidate has' is wrong. There have been a few successful lawsuits won because someone was discriminated against when they were qualified but not hired because the other person was a minority and did NOT have the qualifications. This has 0 to do with their skin color and everything to do with their personal ambition, experience, job performance etc.

Do not write or assume anything into what I said other than what I said.


LaRae
 
:previous:

Sure, but what you are describing is some type of overarching favoritism (which can occur regardless of background or skin color). That's simply carelessness and ineptitude in action, which can happen in any flawed selection system. And I would really be careful about generalizing regarding such lawsuits commonly termed as 'reverse discrimination.' Sigh...

What you are talking about is often used as an excuse by some authority figures to distract from the actual issue of truly basing hiring selection on qualifications while guarding against discrimination. The point is to try and seek out qualified candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds, rather than focusing only on a narrow (good ol' boy network) status-quo-driven applicant pool.

... 'oh we must have a minority professor even if they don't have the qualifications that the other candidate has' is wrong...

That is wrong no matter anyone's ethnic background, and it truly goes without saying. If that's the thinking and the process, as I said earlier, the thinking and the process are inept to begin with.

In any case, why would anyone make that negative assumption or come to that conclusion in the first place? It's a stereotypical construct, and an excuse that's often used.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Sure, but what you are describing is some type of overarching favoritism (which can occur regardless of background or skin color). That's simply carelessness and ineptitude in action, which can happen in any flawed selection system. And I would really be careful about generalizing regarding such lawsuits commonly termed as 'reverse discrimination.' Sigh...

What you are talking about is often used as an excuse by some authority figures to distract from the actual issue of truly basing hiring selection on qualifications while guarding against discrimination. The point is to try and seek out qualified candidates from a wide variety of backgrounds, rather than focusing only on a narrow (good ol' boy network) status-quo-driven applicant pool.


In any case, why would anyone make that negative assumption or come to that conclusion in the first place? It's a stereotypical construct, and an excuse that's often used.

No what I am describing is that the most qualified person for the job (by the job requirements) is how jobs should be hired. No preference given, no extra points because you are female or a minority.

Further I am not generalizing about lawsuits. I am making a factual statement as to what has happened.

Regardless of what has happened ...Nowhere have I said certain applicants should be rejected and only options would be from a narrow field. I have said quite the opposite. Color should have 0 to do with hiring...gender, white, black, latino, Asian etc etc. If you are a black/hispanic/asian transgender person...and you are best qualified then more power to you and you should be hired.



LaRae
 
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrit...-markle-makes-surprise-trip-to-new-york-city/

Random but apparently Meghan was spotted with friends in NYC this weekend. I know her very close friend Heather just had a baby, so I wonder (if true) she was playing catch up with her girls. Either way, if she did hope she had a nice trip.

:previous: It's always interesting how the RPOs are able to help Meghan get around without full-on detection by paps. That's a good thing.

I suppose other guests at the New York restaurant spotted Meghan with her friend. It looks like Meghan has all along been keeping in touch and sharing quality time with her closest friends under-the-radar.
 
The Markles seem not to understand that being low-profile and discreet is the highway to being welcomed in the royal family.

I agree. One of the sad things about this situation is that if her father had remained silent, he would have everything he is saying he wants: access to her, his future grandchild, and the royal family. I had a great amount of respect for his silence up to when he started misbehaving. I know Samantha had a lot to do with that, but why did he listen to her instead of Meghan and Harry. I tell you, it baffles me.
 
No what I am describing is that the most qualified person for the job (by the job requirements) is how jobs should be hired. No preference given, no extra points because you are female or a minority.

Further I am not generalizing about lawsuits. I am making a factual statement as to what has happened.

Regardless of what has happened ...Nowhere have I said certain applicants should be rejected and only options would be from a narrow field. I have said quite the opposite. Color should have 0 to do with hiring...gender, white, black, latino, Asian etc etc. If you are a black/hispanic/asian transgender person...and you are best qualified then more power to you and you should be hired.

The bolded part is the point. And the way to do that is to consciously and fairly expand the applicant pool.

Each 'lawsuit' you are referencing should be judged on their individual merits or lack thereof. As we know, justice is not always served simply because a case is taken to court. The whole notion of 'reverse discrimination' is too often fraught with a lack of understanding and acceptance of the very real political, social, educational, religious and economic discrimination that continues to exist in societies across the world, quite often against people of color.
 
The bits of the letter I saw were heartbreaking. It's clear she'd tried to do right by her father but he let her down badly (& then lied about it). I hope Prince Charles is acting as a fatherly figure to her - Camilla says people don't realise how kind he is.

His kindness was evident in the way he treated Doria the day of the wedding. His taking her hand when they went to sign the registry, and also letting her walk with him and Camilla out of this church so that she would not be by herself. Also, his walking of Meghan down the aisle was demonstrative of his kindness. I believe that he probably his counseling both Meghan(and Harry) during this difficult time.
 
No what I am describing is that the most qualified person for the job (by the job requirements) is how jobs should be hired. No preference given, no extra points because you are female or a minority.

Further I am not generalizing about lawsuits. I am making a factual statement as to what has happened.

Regardless of what has happened ...Nowhere have I said certain applicants should be rejected and only options would be from a narrow field. I have said quite the opposite. Color should have 0 to do with hiring...gender, white, black, latino, Asian etc etc. If you are a black/hispanic/asian transgender person...and you are best qualified then more power to you and you should be hired.



LaRae

I think the issue that Maia Mia is trying to explain is that currently white males are hired very disproportionately.

So, either they are far more qualified than women or minorities OR the hiring process isn't fair (eventhough many would try to hire fairly). Research has shown that those 'like us' are typically perceived as being more qualified while that isn't neccessarily the case if you would look at it more objectively. So, awareness is needed to recognize talent and capacities in candidates less like you (but equally or even more qualified.

N.B. To get hired in top positions it helps to be tall as well and have a conventional name (like John) - as that also adds to the perception of quality/leadership skills apparently.
 
Last edited:
Lilyflo said:
... I hope Prince Charles is acting as a fatherly figure to her [Meghan].

duchessrachel said:
His kindness was evident in the way he treated Doria the day of the wedding. His taking her hand when they went to sign the registry, and also letting her walk with him and Camilla out of this church so that she would not be by herself. Also, his walking of Meghan down the aisle was demonstrative of his kindness. I believe that he probably his counseling both Meghan(and Harry) during this difficult time.

:previous:

Oh for sure @Liflyflo and @duchessrachel. I think there has been plenty of evidence (and articles written) about the fact that Meghan and Prince Charles (as well as Camilla) have developed a close bond. That has to be a source of comfort for Meghan at a time when her own biological father who nurtured her when she was younger, has for some reason decided to cause her pain and heartbreak during the most important and happy period of her life.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue that Maia Mia is trying to explain is that currently white males are hired very disproportionately.

So, either they are far more qualified than women or minorities OR the hiring process isn't fair (eventhough many would try to hire fairly). Research has shown that those 'like us' are typically perceived as being more qualified while that isn't neccessarily the case if you would look at it more objectively. So, awareness is needed to recognize talent and capacities in candidates less like you (but equally or even more qualified.

N.B. To get hired in top positions it helps to be tall as well and have a conventional name (like John) - as that also adds to the perception of quality/leadership skills apparently.


But there is no reason to explain that to me..I already pointed that out several posts ago...in my first post when I pointed out that the diversity was not that great in the U.S. either.


LaRae
 
I agree. One of the sad things about this situation is that if her father had remained silent, he would have everything he is saying he wants: access to her, his future grandchild, and the royal family. I had a great amount of respect for his silence up to when he started misbehaving. I know Samantha had a lot to do with that, but why did he listen to her instead of Meghan and Harry. I tell you, it baffles me.

I've done a lot of reading of what's available (though scant it is, and a lot of it is inaccurate, insubstantial and speculative). However, Andrew Morton details a lot of interesting, factual incidents in his book, regarding how Doria tried to reach out to the Markle teenagers who were around 15 and 13 when Doria and Tom Sr married. The couple waited awhile before conceiving Meghan (having married in December 1979, and Meghan was born in August 1981). By the time Meghan was born, her older half-siblings were 17 and 15.

In any case, Tom Jr is said to have responded more-so to Doria's outreach than did Yvonne/Samantha, who reportedly was going through a rebellious 'Goth' phase. But I think all evidence, in addition to their behavior and comments, points to the fact that neither Tom Jr nor Samantha ever got over their father not being around to raise them when they were young children. They obviously have heavily directed their bitterness and resentment toward Meghan, and most likely have laid a load of guilt on Tom Sr over the years (which he may be succumbing to and falling under the weight of in his old age). In addition, I think it's obvious that Tom Sr has a huge ego that is blinding him to his egregious and irredeemable mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom