I don't see how her past marriage is relevant. If they had children then maybe I could understand. Heck Corey probably has more reason to be listed since he was in her life when her career really kicked off. No one hiding the fact she was married. Lawd knows you can't avoid. But I doubt it if went to the biography sections of corporate websites and scrolled I would find a lot of [XXX is the ex of XXX] on there. I could be wrong.
Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News Part 1: May 2018 - December 2018
- Thread starter JessRulz
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
I don't see how her past marriage is relevant. If they had children then maybe I could understand. Heck Corey probably has more reason to be listed since he was in her life when her career really kicked off. No one hiding the fact she was married. Lawd knows you can't avoid. But I doubt it if went to the biography sections of corporate websites and scrolled I would find a lot of [XXX is the ex of XXX] on there. I could be wrong.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
How are they not hiding that she was previously married when it wasn't even mentioned that she was? If they didn't want to mention her first husband's name they could leave it at that.
And again, a marriage isn't only relevant or important when children are born. The commitment is made to each other. If Harry and Meghan won't have any children it would still be relevant and important to mention that they are married.
And no, corporate websites typically don't include personal information. I wouldn't expect a CEO to list his or her parents' names unless it is a family-owned company. So, if this was a corporate website and not a family-oriented 'firm' her parents nor her marriage (first nor second) would be relevant.
Apparently he's dropped that project. His current project Snowfall is renewed for a second season.
I agree that any marriage would be important but it appears that the Sussexes are not mentioning her previous marriage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pranter
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 12,309
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
I don't know why it would be necessary to mention it...they had no children. She has no ties to her former husband.
LaRae
LaRae
I guess I am having trouble understanding why it is relevant or how it is hiding when the WORLD knows she was a previously divorced woman. Why does Trevor who hasn't been in her life for years need to be involved in her bio? He is not her family. He is not in her life. If people want to look him up they can do that but he doesn't need to be included in her business. I mean they don't even list her siblings and we know they exist too.
Countessmeout
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 13,069
- City
- alberta
- Country
- Canada
Relevant in the sense of her new life.
These biographies are about their life, and their role in the royal family. Their family/education/history and how it influences their current life. An ex husband has as little to do with this, as a past relationship of any kind.
Is Chelsy any less relevant to Harry because he didn't marry her? He was involved with her for a long period of time, and that would have shaped who he is. Just as much if not more then Trevor did for Meghan. Are they hiding Harry's past by not including her in his biography? Or any of his other relationships? Or the relationships of any of the other royals?
Anne and Camilla's previous marriages are only mentioned for the kids. Specifically. No detail about the marriages. Just who they were, and the kids that came from it. Because in a royal biography, that's the only thing that matters.
Its not as if they have erased Trevor from history books or something.
The biographies are basically job resumes/ job profiles. You don't include every single thing you did in your life. You include what is relevant to the job. If I was writing my job profile for the doctor's clinic I used to work for, I wouldn't include my previous boyfriends. Were they important? Yes. Relevant to my job? No. My colleagues who were married and had kids did they include it? Yes. Because it was a part of who they are now. And just in passing.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
So, you would agree that if Harry and Meghan end up divorced (which I sincerely hope doesn't happen) and not have any children it should not be mentioned in Harry's biography on the website but if they end up having a child it suddenly needs to be mentioned as their marriage turned from being completely irrelevant to an important fact of life?
I hope you see how hurtful it is to judge the importance of a marriage by the children it produced.
I never heard she was required. It seemed it was a personal decision to start fresh but she is still unofficially supportive of them. Case and point the Myna Mahila Foundation which she is still making sure to highlight whenever she can.
If they so fit. Then sure. Their marriage ended and honestly we have no reason why. I get some might see it as hurtful but honestly some relationships end and once done mean very little to them anymore. Trevor was her husband years ago. He has no bearing on her life now. He is no secret. And if the Sussexes spit they too will be no secret. We can just agree to disagree on this need to have him mentioned in her royal bio.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2018
- Messages
- 5,222
- City
- the West
- Country
- United States
In a dynastic sense, which is what it really is when we are talking about the British royal family, it isn't important. And the personal profiles on the public pages of the BRF are the public face of the monarchy. For whatever reason, including Meghan's former marriage was not considered important, any more than it would be important to include on a company website for a corporation.
I don't think anyone is thinking they can keep her previous marriage a secret this day and age.
You can find the divorce documents online. It is what it is and people will feel about it however they choose. However, it's irrelevant to who she is now. Her commitment to making the world a better place in whatever way she can, on the other hand, is very much relevant to her current life and future work.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
I don't agree that a non-marital relationship should be mentioned and is no different from a marriage, which is a public commitment. The royal family itself is pretty clear about the distinction; once engaged someone becomes official and only a formal member of the family with title and all when married, until that moment it is considered private. So, yes, there is no need to include Chelsy nor Cressida as Harry didn't ask them to be his wife and introduce either one of them as such to the world. Meghan instead got married to Trevor, so he was clearly in the 'it's official, I am his wife and we decided to be together for life' category and that deserves to be mentioned 'at least in passing'. Although I guess the Duchess of Windsor would have liked your approach... And I noticed Caroline's first marriage isn't mentioned either in her biography at the monegasque website so not including important life events isn't unique to the BRF - princess Sofia of Sweden's biography is another prime example. On the other hand, the civil marriage and subsequent divorce is mentioned in Letizia's biography.
Last edited:
I'm the believer that all previous relationship by itself isn't important enough to be mentioned as it isn't part of one's life now. However, it does create a difficult situation when you want to mention children or if you are known as Mrs. when marrying into the royal family. And how is it hurtful to judge a previous relationship by if children are involved? Past relationships are simply unimportant in that sense after it is over. The only thing that remains important enough is the child(ren). If more parents can understand that when they go through divorces, perhaps we would hear far fewer stories of children being caught in the middle due to an acrimonious divorce.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
My guess would be that it was a joined decision. I am sure they talked it through with several people and it was decided (by Mehan and/or their entourage) that it was best not to continue with her previous charity work. However, I am glad to see that this was not the end of her involvement. It might have been a wise decision given the questions that Sofia's continued support of Project Playground received.
If he is no secret why not mention it in passing? Her role as Rachel Zane in Suits has no bearing on her life now either and gets quite a lot of attention. But yes, of course each one can have his/her own opinion on this theme
If he is no secret why not mention it in passing? Her role as Rachel Zane in Suits has no bearing on her life now either and gets quite a lot of attention. But yes, of course each one can have his/her own opinion on this theme
Well that was her career and frankly it was massive part of her life when the royals entered into it. Trevor, if we going by that example, was long gone. So that comparison is fairly weak. Meghan never mentioned this man after their divorce pre Harry. I don't expect her to start now.
If he is no secret why not mention it in passing? Her role as Rachel Zane in Suits has no bearing on her life now either and gets quite a lot of attention. But yes, of course each one can have his/her own opinion on this theme
Because her career as an actress was a big part of who she was when they were dating. She left the role when it became obvious that the relationship was headed towards marriage and it wouldn't be sustainable with her role as Harry's wife. In fact, I believe she was still filming when they got engaged. Trevor was not, at any point, important part of their lives together nor was there a child from that relationship that's now a part of their life together.
Last edited:
Family, education and history are important but not a previous marriage? I think we’re just picking and choosing now. Why are her parents names or her role in suits relevant to her life as a royal but not a previous marriage.
I don't see Samantha and Thomas Jr listed either. They are her half siblings. I just don't see how Trevor who she was married to and divorced years prior and has literally no connection to anymore has to be mentioned on her royal bio. I think her siblings have a bigger connection despite their antics and yet...
Actually, maybe that says it all.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
Of course it would be weird not to mention that she was an actress and for her current life it also is relevant that she lived in Canada because of it but I don't see how the name of her character was more important than the fact that she was married previously.
c
That's a valid concern, so if that would be the reason not to include his name bjt just mention that she was married previously from 2011-2013 it would be accurate without withholding relevant information.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,378
- City
- Hermosa Beach
- Country
- United States
The discussion is just going around in circles, so let’s move on from why Meghan’s first marriage wasn’t include in her official bio.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 10,339
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
This article seems to suggest that the couple is off to Australia and are staying in Meghan's former colleague's (Gabriel Macht) home in Queensland. Although it isn't quite clear whether they are talking about 'now' or October.
Last edited:
Thanks for your post trying to make sense of it. It's however not how the Spanish royal family went about it. In Letizia's biography her first marriage and divorce are mentioned, so different approaches are taken. And imo this is the more appropriate one but as soapstar requested to move on, I will try to do so
The BR site also doesn't mention Princess Michael of Kent's first marriage and divorce.
Missy-
Courtier
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2013
- Messages
- 526
- City
- The Beautiful PNW
- Country
- United States
Just wondering, other than a trip to Rwanda and one to India, where is the evidence of her previous charity work? It seems it was very scattered and used to give her talking points and status (a la Angelina Jolie), doesn't seem she did much real 'feet on the ground' work at all.
When I say charity work I’m just repeating what others have said. Even Meghan’s story about writing to a dish detergent company when she was eleven wasn’t as spontaneous as I first thought. It was part of a school project.
Actually that’s not true. She saw the commercial with the kids at school. However, the letters were her own. Even when the kids show went back to interview her, they were clear it was her. I really hate to keep going back and forth on this, but facts do matter.
Not exactly. It was spawned by a school project, but the project wasn't to write letters. From the Inside Edition video:
"For a social studies assignment, way back in elementary school in Los Angeles, Meghan and her classmates were asked to watch some commercials and assess their messages."
There is no indication, from the original footage available or otherwise, that she was required to write letters as part of the project, or that any other child in the class did so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Meghan spent years volunteering at a soup kitchen in Skid Row with her parents and teacher as a teen. She continued to work with a soup kitchen in Toronto when she was on Suits. This information came from various other sources that went on record as well, btw. I believe she also went up the latter and had the food from kraft services on site to be donated to the soup kitchen rather than going to waste. The woman obviously sees a solution to a problem and do things to make it happen.
She spent more than a week in Rwanda. The first being with UN to work with women in local politics as part of her role with UN Women (remember the speech on IWD? That was after this trip). More than half of the members of Parliament in Rwanda are women. So this was part of her Ambassador role. She did spend significant time with One Young World as well in terms of going to their summits and participate as a youth leader. Obviously, there is also her work with World Vision with their campaign to build water wells in Rwanda and the India trip. From all accounts, she did spend significant time behind the scene to actually understand the issues. Reps from both One Young World and World Vision came out and said that she's always well prepared.
I know some criticism has been leveled at her and others for not spending all of their time there, but spending a week here and there. My issue with this is that these people are doing whatever they can to spread the word and get these issues on people's radars.
She spent more than a week in Rwanda. The first being with UN to work with women in local politics as part of her role with UN Women (remember the speech on IWD? That was after this trip). More than half of the members of Parliament in Rwanda are women. So this was part of her Ambassador role. She did spend significant time with One Young World as well in terms of going to their summits and participate as a youth leader. Obviously, there is also her work with World Vision with their campaign to build water wells in Rwanda and the India trip. From all accounts, she did spend significant time behind the scene to actually understand the issues. Reps from both One Young World and World Vision came out and said that she's always well prepared.
I know some criticism has been leveled at her and others for not spending all of their time there, but spending a week here and there. My issue with this is that these people are doing whatever they can to spread the word and get these issues on people's radars.
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m going to disagree over the motives of not just Meghan but celebrities in general. I don’t think they do it to get the issues on the radar, it’s all part of the brand. They go to Africa or India with a camera crew, have their pictures taken looking all bleary eyed and it scores points
Her comments about she only works to provide herself with ability to to charity work is a pretty embarrassing thing to say when we know that’s just not the case.
Her comments about she only works to provide herself with ability to to charity work is a pretty embarrassing thing to say when we know that’s just not the case.
Last edited by a moderator:
Countessmeout
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 13,069
- City
- alberta
- Country
- Canada
The article says :
Which would suggest that it means they will stop there, if true, at the start of their tour to Australia in the fall. Charles and Camilla have been known to make a stop ahead of a tour, especially on a longer trip, to get adjusted.
Last edited by a moderator:
the whole they just want this image thing doesn't work considering a lot of the people that she's worked with always comment on how well-prepared she is. And let's not go on about people curating a public image as something bad or something exclusive to Hollywood. The royal family does it as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
