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

[Curbside]

[......]


Would it be all over the tabloids if William and Kate showed up at their local polling place to cast their votes? This is what I’m getting at. No one might stop them, but the cost of voting seems high if you have to give up your job to do so.

 

[Somebody]

Meghan managed to get into an elite university, and Northwestern is not a charm school—full disclosure, NU is my alma mater. She is not stupid.

With that I agree. However, being smart (intellectually) doesn't necessarily mean doing the right and smart thing.

Who cares? She gave it a whirl, decided it wasn’t for her, and decided life is too short to deal with the frustrations with so few relative rewards.

Lots of people. I guess it is hard for people outside of a monarchy to understand that if you commit to marrying a prominent member of the royal family with representative duties that means a commitment for life. Not a 'let's try and see for as long as I like it' - while at the same time taking over patronages from the queen, however, she didn't take her marriage vows seriously the first time (also over within 2 years), so, probably no surprise that she didn't take this commitment seriously either.

So now that she no longer works for the BRF, she needs to sit in a corner for the rest of her life?

No, of course not. But just not build your whole professional life on your fame as a private member of the British royal family.

......

Would it be all over the tabloids if William and Kate showed up at their local polling place to cast their votes? This is what I’m getting at. No one might stop them, but the cost of voting seems high if you have to give up your job to do so.

It's another example of them being in a very privileged position pretending to have the same troubles as the one they are speaking out for. It's not, Harry didn't vote because of his position in the ruling family of the country - not comparable at all to someone that because s/he committed a felony 30 years ago is still not allowed to vote or the person that is again and again prevented from registering as a voter for petty reasons because they are suspected to vote for the 'wrong' party (why do you even need to register? In many countries that isn't needed).

 

[Somebody]

EDIiT: Other than in Belgium , where voting is compulsory and Royals ( with the exception of the King and Queen) regularly vote, I don’t think senior royals in any European monarchy do, but I am not sure how low one has to go in the line of succession for that convention to cease to apply. It would be really great to discuss that in a more appropriate forum.

The Luxembourgian grand ducal family also votes - except for the grand duke and grand duchess. The Hereditary Grand Duke and Hereditary Grand Duchess however do vote; even though Guillaume is expected to be the next head of state.

 

[Mbruno]

Lots of people. I guess it is hard for people outside of a monarchy to understand that if you commit to marrying a prominent member of the royal family with representative duties that means a commitment for life. Not a 'let's try and see for as long as I like it' - while at the same time taking over patronages from the queen, however, she didn't take her marriage vows seriously the first time (also over within 2 years), so, probably no surprise that she didn't take this commitment seriously either.

Actually I don’t think it is so difficult to understand as ordinary, middle-class foreign women like Máxima or Mary Donaldson didn’t have too much trouble to grasp that concept .

Honestly , I expected that Meghan would have a learning curve to adjust to her new life and, over time, might even find enough room to do things slightly differently , or “ her way” if you will, but the way things unfolded caught me completely off-guard.

I apologize if I will sound like “such a guy” or sexist , but usually it is the royal wife who is expected to adjust her life to her husband’s and not the other way around as it happened to Harry who quit his country and his “job “ so to speak for Meghan. Usually, when the royal wife doesn’t adjust, she gets out on her own or is thrown out like Sarah or Diana , but I had never seen a situation like Harry and Meghan’s before. Forget half in , half out. It is clear they are 100 % out now, but somehow it is still convenient for Meghan to be introduced as “Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex”, as she was in the 19 interview.

 

[Curbside]

It really feels like a weird cultural difference and I tend to fall into an American view of this subject (obviously). Voting is largely regarded as a very important individual right that has nothing to do with livelihood or position.

For someone like Meghan, who has been involved with political causes at a young age, I can imagine how puzzling it must have been to discover her new beau did not vote.

 

[caethi]

Having a voice is totally separate from having privilege.

I appreciate your perspective, but in my view, the two are linked. Part of being privileged is having the opportunity to share your opinions and develop or access a platform for initiating change. It means that a person is situated in a social position where advantages outweigh disadvantages. For example, Diana had many personal issues that were exacerbated by her marriage, which no doubt created a great deal of distress and contributed to an unhappy marriage. The fellow who coached her on her speeches (see the famous tapes) said that he wanted Diana to find her voice. Even before Diana fully developed as a person, she was still able to create a platform and exercise her voice because she had opportunity, and her confidence developed as she matured. Meghan is a mature woman who by many accounts has been developing her social justice platform for years. Her position of privilege has allowed her to do so in an increasingly public way. To claim to have been "voiceless" in her recent life in my view is rather disingenuous.



I think Meghan is bright and driven, but I have to question her interview strategy. She could be empathic without whinging about her own struggles. This is her second reference to voicelessness and it does her no favours in my eyes. Maybe it resonates with the people she is trying to positively influence, or maybe she just wants to keep throwing indirect digs at the BRF.

 

[Curbside]

With that I agree. However, being smart (intellectually) doesn't necessarily mean doing the right and smart thing.



Lots of people. I guess it is hard for people outside of a monarchy to understand that if you commit to marrying a prominent member of the royal family with representative duties that means a commitment for life. Not a 'let's try and see for as long as I like it' - while at the same time taking over patronages from the queen, however, she didn't take her marriage vows seriously the first time (also over within 2 years), so, probably no surprise that she didn't take this commitment seriously either.


No, of course not. But just not build your whole professional life on your fame as a private member of the British royal family.


It's another example of them being in a very privileged position pretending to have the same troubles as the one they are speaking out for. It's not, Harry didn't vote because of his position in the ruling family of the country - not comparable at all to someone that because s/he committed a felony 30 years ago is still not allowed to vote or the person that is again and again prevented from registering as a voter for petty reasons because they are suspected to vote for the 'wrong' party (why do you even need to register? In many countries that isn't needed).

She had a successful career long before she met Harry. Certainly more successful than the vast majority of IR/theater majors.

 

[Kopper]

The more important question is why does the convention exist? There is a historical context here.

If a member of the royal family wishes to exercise their franchise the honourable action to take is to abjure their titles & become a private citizen.

Agreed. My understanding is that they have to remain neutral because they represent the UK, and the Queen is Head of State regardless of who is elected. If they are thought to have political opinions then it could make the relationship with the government of the day rather awkward. To not vote seems like a safe way to preserve those relationships and seems reasonable to me.

 

[Somebody]

Actually I don’t think it is so difficult to understand as ordinary, middle-class foreign women like Máxima or Mary Donaldson didn’t have too much trouble to grasp that concept .

I don't think it is hard to understand at all - but it appears at least some people not being used to a monarchy themselves do have trouble understanding it.

Honestly , I expected that Meghan would have a learning curve to adjust to her new life and, over time, might even find enough room to do things slightly differently , or “ her way” if you will, but the way things unfolded caught me completely off-guard.

She already found room to do things slightly differently. The way she went about some projects such as the cookbook wasn't common but did fit in. So, yes, I'd say there definitely was room and over time they could have accomplished much - especially with the Commonwealth role that was created for them.

I apologize if I will sound like “such a guy” or sexist , but usually it is the royal wife who is expected to adjust her life to her husband’s and not the other way around as it happened to Harry who quit his country and his “job “ so to speak for Meghan. Usually, when the royal wife doesn’t adjust, she gets out on her own or is thrown out like Sarah or Diana , but I had never seen a situation like Harry and Meghan’s before. Forget half in , half out. It is clear they are 100 % out now, but somehow it is still convenient for Meghan to be introduced as “Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex”, as she was in the 19 interview.

Well, that is her big draw... The event includes among others a former first-lady and presidential candidate, a VP-candidate, senators and congress women but the highlight for this event 'we even have a duchess' - in that way going completely against everything they say to stand for: which is "to empower women — particularly those underserved by and underrepresented in American media — with the information, community and tools they need to be equal participants in our democracy" The other speakers are great examples of that and role models but the only thing Meghan achieved was becoming 'a duchess'* which she did by 'marrying a foreign prince'.

Note: I am aware that Meghan did more than that but she was presented as 'the duchess', so that apparently is her main achievement and reason to be included in this event.

 

[Kopper]

Agreed. My understanding is that they have to remain neutral because they represent the UK, and the Queen is Head of State regardless of who is elected. If they are thought to have political opinions then it could make the relationship with the government of the day rather awkward. To not vote seems like a safe way to preserve those relationships and seems reasonable to me.

I was also just thinking that the media speculation about who a Royal voted for would be over the top if they did vote.

 

[Durham]

It really feels like a weird cultural difference and I tend to fall into an American view of this subject (obviously). Voting is largely regarded as a very important individual right that has nothing to do with livelihood or position.

For someone like Meghan, who has been involved with political causes at a young age, I can imagine how puzzling it must have been to discover her new beau did not vote.

That's understandable.

Since it's "Her Majesty's Government" & "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" the monarch, & by extension the royal family, are considered above day to day partisan politics. Think of it as being part of their unifying role.

When a war is won it's "God save the Queen" & when a war is lost it's "down with the government".

Not that I'm advocating war of course. Although we & the French used to do it quite a lot.

 

[Somebody]

It really feels like a weird cultural difference and I tend to fall into an American view of this subject (obviously). Voting is largely regarded as a very important individual right that has nothing to do with livelihood or position.

I guess it is such a contested issue in the States because in practice is has to do with your position in society (and also where you live - in many places you vote is completely lost if you happen to be the minority). In countries where there are no such limitations and everyone is equally able to vote - and their votes truly count, it's not such an issue. Most people exercise their rights and some don't because they don't care enough about that specific election.

For someone like Meghan, who has been involved with political causes at a young age, I can imagine how puzzling it must have been to discover her new beau did not vote.

Of course, I understand that could have been puzzling but a great topic of conversation on the workings of the royal family; in this specific case of why the family members are willing to not exercise that right to be able to be perceived as neutral. And how they are able to use their position in other ways to work for the greater good.

She had a successful career long before she met Harry. Certainly more successful than the vast majority of IR/theater majors.

Yes, she had a successful career. I guess whether it was more successful than other graduates in International Relations who might now be diplomats is up for debate but she did well for herself. However, she is no longer building on her acting career that primarily consisted of one long-time network show and a blog (which helped her become acquainted with people that led to her being introduced to Harry). She is currently building her whole life on the fame she gained by marrying Harry...

 

[Kopper]

It really feels like a weird cultural difference and I tend to fall into an American view of this subject (obviously). Voting is largely regarded as a very important individual right that has nothing to do with livelihood or position.

For someone like Meghan, who has been involved with political causes at a young age, I can imagine how puzzling it must have been to discover her new beau did not vote.

True. As a Canadian I’m used to this way of thinking since the Queen is our Head of State as well, but I can see how it would be a striking (and maybe confusing) cultural difference for her.

 

[Mbruno]

If you mean this one in Marie Claire, which is about voting, the actual quote is:
https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a33264457/women-voting-2020-election/

Where's the complaint? Meghan is just stating a fact and for someone who values her freedom to speak on political matters, it must have been challenging to lose that freedom as an HRH and "feel voiceless" but in that quote above, she's not complaining about it and why would she because that's something she'd have been told was part of the deal marrying Harry and becoming a member of the working BRF. The reason I'm sure she'd have been told about it was because from the time of the engagement onwards, she remained politically silent as they all do.

The context is different now because Meghan is no longer a working royal and is living in the US, but I assume her statement to Marie Claire is how she actually feels. If so, it is another evidence that she was ill-suited for royal life. As a royal, she could never be part of a GoTV ("get out the vote") campaign or stress how important voting was for her.



In simple terms, the type of political activism she wants to engage in is incompatible with the constraints she would live under in her life as a full-time princess. Did she fully understand that when she got married?


PS: Then, again, she is quoted in the Marie Claire article as "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" and, as Somebody said, it is her title that seems to make her rank among "100 influential women" .

 

[Curbside]

I don't think it is hard to understand at all - but it appears at least some people not being used to a monarchy themselves do have trouble understanding it.





She already found room to do things slightly differently. The way she went about some projects such as the cookbook wasn't common but did fit in. So, yes, I'd say there definitely was room and over time they could have accomplished much - especially with the Commonwealth role that was created for them.







Well, that is her big draw... The event includes among others a former first-lady and presidential candidate, a VP-candidate, senators and congress women but the highlight for this event 'we even have a duchess' - in that way going completely against everything they say to stand for: which is "to empower women — particularly those underserved by and underrepresented in American media — with the information, community and tools they need to be equal participants in our democracy" The other speakers are great examples of that and role models but the only thing Meghan achieved was becoming 'a duchess'* which she did by 'marrying a foreign prince'.



Note: I am aware that Meghan did more than that but she was presented as 'the duchess', so that apparently is her main achievement and reason to be included in this event.

I get the impression that Harry has been interested in forging a different path for himself for some time.

 

[Kataryn]

I believe that biography is called “finding Freedom”
Too much personal information (that can only come from her) and too much blowing her own trumpet for it to not be.
The fact she is not suing Omid for an invasion of privacy is another major telling.

If I wanted to say that, I would have.
My thought was that there will be one day a book by Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor or Meghan The Duchess of Sussex where she, personally, talks about her life experiences. The way I see Meghan, she doesn't need some obscure Scobie/Durant-pairs to tell what she want to be heard. And while she probably understands that the RF is there for all people and so doesn't say anything partially, she will for the benefit of people she feels need it.

And as long as she does not commit crimes against the law, she can happily live in that mediterranean paradise while lifting her voice for the poor. They all do that in the US!

 

[Mbruno]

I get the impression that Harry has been interested in forging a different path for himself for some time.

Agreed, but does it follow that the path he wanted to forge for himself is necessarily Meghan's ? Who knows, maybe he would be living in South Africa right now if he actually got to choose his own path, not his family's nor his wife's.



But I insist he is an adult and if he wants to give up the life he knew from birth to follow Meghan in California, it is up to him. My own experience with moving to different countries and making big changes in life is that there is always a honeymoon period, where Harry may be right now enjoying the surf in Santa Barbara and the beautiful California scenery, but then there is the opposite impulse to feel homesick and, finally, some balance.

 

[Denville]

“I feel like she has embraced 100 % the California activist persona”
That has always been her persona, you just need to look at her obvious faux activism history, and one of the reasons why some of us rang the alarm bells when the engagement was announced.

Of course it has.. but IMO her main desire is to get away from the RF life with its dull duties, and the restrictions and to have her "own" knd of royal life, where she can make money as she chooses and do whatever kind of spouting off on political or other issues that she chooses. And she ahd to do a year or 2 of Royal life to get famous enough to start off this new life in California...

Which makes even less sense since Harry has a right to vote in UK elections but chooses not to do so (per convention for BRF members). How in the world is this disenfranchisement?

Exactly. Surely if she genuinely wanted to say something helpful about voting, and wasn't just listening ot the sound of her own voice, she could have looked up some real information about voting in the UK and in the US and given real examples

 

[Betsypaige]

Regardless of one’s opinion on that issue , Meghan’s example was , however, inappropriate. She was talking about the struggle for voting rights , which is clearly meant to refer to groups of people like women, Indians or other minorities who, as a result of social discrimination and inequality, were not only legally barred from voting, but actually were denied any voice or influence in public affairs. Then she mentioned , in that same context, her husband who not only can legally vote, but also, on the contrary, has a direct line , if he wanted to , to ministers and legislators, and probably potentially far more influence in public affairs than any ordinary voter. So , in the broader sense, Harry is exactly the opposite of a diisenfranchised person and it is beyond belief to me that Meghan would use him as an example of disenfranchisement.

This! Meghan is completely out of touch, and it’s really insulting to anyone who has ever had to struggle for the right to vote. How can anyone take her seriously about most anything when she’s always trying to relate issues back to herself or Harry, even when the situations don’t apply?

 

[Osipi]

Her aim was to stand up and be counted among US women active in politics and talk about the American *right* to vote (thanks Curbside for reminding me its a right and not a privilege) and having the title "duchess" thrown in and bringing up her husband the prince that is restricted from voting in the UK, to me, is like a comparison I've made before.

With the focus being on US rights to vote and have a "voice", throwing in the "royal" and the "UK royal way of being apolitical" is like going to a seminar where you are expecting Neil deGrasse Tyson to speak on the latest in astrophysics and end up listening to him drone on for a hour on how to make the perfect western omelet out in the open, looking at the night sky.

 

[Denville]

This! Meghan is completely out of touch, and it’s really insulting to anyone who has ever had to struggle for the right to vote. How can anyone take her seriously about most anything when she’s always trying to relate issues back to herself or Harry, even when the situations don’t apply?

It does seem to be rather like their Africa doc last year where tehy used it to talk about themselves while it was meant ot highlight the problems of the people in Africa...

 

[Betsypaige]

It really feels like a weird cultural difference and I tend to fall into an American view of this subject (obviously). Voting is largely regarded as a very important individual right that has nothing to do with livelihood or position.

For someone like Meghan, who has been involved with political causes at a young age, I can imagine how puzzling it must have been to discover her new beau did not vote.

Not really - I’m American and I couldn’t disagree with you more. Be careful about painting all Americans with the same brush.

**What I mean is that, of course I believe that voting is a right, but Meghan was referring to Harry being disenfranchised, and that’s what I disagree with.

 

[evolvingdoors]

She had a successful career long before she met Harry. Certainly more successful than the vast majority of IR/theater majors.

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

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

 

[evolvingdoors]

I don't think it is hard to understand at all - but it appears at least some people not being used to a monarchy themselves do have trouble understanding it.


She already found room to do things slightly differently. The way she went about some projects such as the cookbook wasn't common but did fit in. So, yes, I'd say there definitely was room and over time they could have accomplished much - especially with the Commonwealth role that was created for them.



Well, that is her big draw... The event includes among others a former first-lady and presidential candidate, a VP-candidate, senators and congress women but the highlight for this event 'we even have a duchess' - in that way going completely against everything they say to stand for: which is "to empower women — particularly those underserved by and underrepresented in American media — with the information, community and tools they need to be equal participants in our democracy" The other speakers are great examples of that and role models but the only thing Meghan achieved was becoming 'a duchess'* which she did by 'marrying a foreign prince'.

Note: I am aware that Meghan did more than that but she was presented as 'the duchess', so that apparently is her main achievement and reason to be included in this event.

It should, I think, be pointed out that Meghan contacted them, and not the other way around. She essentially invited herself, they did not go out looking for her.

 

[Curbside]

Most actors do not earn millions over the course of several years. She’s not “a-list” but most people don’t have “a-list” careers, even when they are successful.

 

[Denville]

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

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

acting is a difficult career, and hundreds of actors wind up doing odd acting jobs now and again and mainly working in some other field.. so to get steady work is success of a kind. But it wasn't anything like super success... She was no Grace Kelly. She was pretty, had the basic training and made a steady living in acting.. but she was never going to be in big movies or be a star... Other actors have succeeded with less looks but more talent.. or some just succeed because of great beauty and the X factor which makes them appealing. If she had been a big star woudl she have given it all up to become a royal duchess? Mabye but I think not likely...

 

[Somebody]

It should, I think, be pointed out that Meghan contacted them, and not the other way around. She essentially invited herself, they did not go out looking for her.

Yes, I've pointed that out several times before. Meghan invited herself and was then seen as the biggest price/draw - which is weird given that her relevant achievement in this case was her marriage unlike many others who are actually active in politics.

 

[Eskimo]

Yes, I've pointed that out several times before. Meghan invited herself and was then seen as the biggest price/draw - which is weird given that her relevant achievement in this case was her marriage unlike many others who are actually active in politics.

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

 

[Denville]

Yes, I've pointed that out several times before. Meghan invited herself and was then seen as the biggest price/draw - which is weird given that her relevant achievement in this case was her marriage unlike many others who are actually active in politics.

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

 

[Osipi]

acting is a difficult career, and hundreds of actors wind up doing odd acting jobs now and again and mainly working in some other field.. so to get steady work is success of a kind. But it wasn't anything like super success... She was no Grace Kelly. She was pretty, had the basic training and made a steady living in acting.. but she was never going to be in big movies or be a star... Other actors have succeeded with less looks but more talent.. or some just succeed because of great beauty and the X factor which makes them appealing. If she had been a big star woudl she have given it all up to become a royal duchess? Mabye but I think not likely...

There's a world of difference between the Grace Kelly movie star era and being a "movie star" today. Back in Grace's time, you had a few good studios in Hollywood making movies. That movie, when released, drew people by the scores to the theaters to see *that* movie. Choices were slim pickings. Today to land a role in a TV series and even to have the character name become a "household word" (like for example Miranda Bailey. I hear some of you going "who???) it still is only pertinent to people that actually know and watch Grey's Anatomy that's been on for 16 seasons so far. So many other choices for people these days. To be honest, I could go out right now and pass George Clooney in the dog food aisle and have absolutely no clue who he is. He's just never been in my wheelhouse of interest.

There are many, many top of the heaps these days. C-list to one person is an A-list to another and talk show hosts are just blowing smoke and mainstream media achor people are just talking heads. To be well established in any kind of "work" continually in the entertainment business is success in itself in a fickle world.