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

[KellyAtLast]

Like I said in the Diana legacy thread only the main players should attend the unveiling. Her 2 sons only leave the wives at home and Diana’s siblings. And of course the people who made the statue. As for a balcony appearance forget it. The royal family would be a fool to let her back in like that again. She cannot be trusted. Who knows maybe this tome she may be wired and record all their convos in the palace for Book 2. Or she will do another interview back in Cali make a dig at the family again
Duke and duchess of Windsor came back after many years away. What you’re suggesting is too soon.

 

[Denville]

Simply because other royal families aren't usually talked about that often. Plus, most people don't know other royal families exist.

And plenty of other monarchies have "drama" just it is not that much reported in teh US and UK media. Look at Spain, or Belgium...

 

[Denville]

Like I said in the Diana legacy thread only the main players should attend the unveiling. Her 2 sons only leave the wives at home and Diana’s siblings. And of course the people who made the statue. As for a balcony appearance forget it. The royal family would be a fool to let her back in like that again. She cannot be trusted. Who knows maybe this tome she may be wired and record all their convos in the palace for Book 2. Or she will do another interview back in Cali make a dig at the family again
Duke and duchess of Windsor came back after many years away. What you’re suggesting is too soon.

The RF are not going to make their problems iwht her public. there is no reason why she should be forbidden to attend the unveiling of Diana's statue or be at Trooping.

 

[Sun Lion]

I'm not sure whether or not this interesting article from Inside Story was linked here earlier. It relates the fascinating history of the Riven Rock area of Montecito. Santa Barbara and Montecito were part of an undeveloped resort region initially popularized by Charlie Chaplin. The wealthy, Katharine Dexter McCormick, was later instrumental in developing the huge Riven Rock estate for therapeutic and medical research purposes. The original area constitutes a vast swathe of land, of which M&H's current property only comprises 5.4 acres.

The intriguing thing about Katharine McCormick is her commitment to finding a cure for her husband's mental illness, and later, her substantial and significant financial contributions that enabled the scientific research which ultimately produced the first groundbreaking contraceptive birth control pill:
https://insidestory.org.au/with-royalty-at-riven-rock/

Meghan & Harry's house was built in 2003, and is popularly referred to as the 'Chateau of Riven Rock':
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/la-fi-hotprop-montecito-chateau-20150612-story.html

The above source indicates 9 bedrooms and 12.5 bathrooms (not 16 bathrooms as reported elsewhere).

Here's more about the Riven Rock estate and about Charlie Chaplin's influence in advancing interest in Santa Barbara and Montecito:

https://www.montecitoinn.com/history.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riven_Rock,_Montecito


Here are two connected articles in one that discuss the design and construction of M&H's current home by the original owners/builders, Terry Cunningham and his wife Randi, who modeled the design on their love of French Provencal architecture. The house has also been described as 'Tuscan-inspired' in some of its design features:
https://trendswide.com/watch-out-fo...om-designer-of-harry-and-meghans-11m-mansion/

The Cunninghams certainly offered revealing details and insights into the property. They clearly loved building and living in the home where they raised their children, who fondly remember their enjoyment in growing up there. Despite the dangers of natural disasters, the property and the surrounding area offer substantial privacy and a great lifestyle for entertaining friends and enjoying an intimate family life. I suppose living in paradise will always present inherent challenges to balance out the sublime positives.

As quickly as photos of the house have been taken off real-estate websites, fans have been creating blogs about the property, MaiaMia.

Even some photos taken by locals who had a wander up the private - but not gated - road have been put on the internet.

There is a harrowing first hand account of the 2018 mudslide disaster, in which twenty three people lost their lives, available too.

And photos of the destruction that reached this area, but not quite the house.

Not that many years ago it was being offered for sale at over $45,000,000 US - before dropping down and down and down to the incredible price the Sussexes secured it at.

I guess the fires and slides of 2018 caused a loss of market value, though the natural disasters of the Santa Barbara area seem pretty regular, so should not be a surprise to anyone.

There is a very good feature detailing the fires, floods and slides of the last one hundred years or so.

Even at the moment local media has been posting about the smoke haze there from current fires around the area.

An amazing property none the less, and the opportunity for a wonderful lifestyle for the couple going forward.

 

[KellyAtLast]

The RF are not going to make their problems iwht her public. there is no reason why she should be forbidden to attend the unveiling of Diana's statue or be at Trooping.

They don’t need to she already made it public. Imo the Diana unveiling is not really a royal family thing it’s more of a William Harry thing. So let Just the boys go.

 

[Denville]

They don’t need to she already made it public.

They may be pretty angry wit her, but they are not going to show it in public. Will did look cross at the Commonwealth service but I think he should have controlled his annoyance better and that was some months ago. They are a public family and will at times appear in public together...
and re teh statue, it is for Diana's family, which includes her sons, siblings, grandchildren.. and it woudl be odd if Will took Kate but Hary went alone.

 

[camelot23ca]

The RF are not going to make their problems iwht her public. there is no reason why she should be forbidden to attend the unveiling of Diana's statue or be at Trooping.

Exactly. The Queen may be disappointed in Harry
and will know very well that a dramatic little narrative about Harry and Meghan’s brief time back with members of the family will follow these appearances, (I wonder how Kate will disappoint Meghan this time?) by way of Mr. Scobie and other favoured Sussex family pets. But she’s not going to add fuel to the fire by needlessly refusing them things that don’t really matter. The Queen and the RF in general have no need to be petty.

To me there’s no comparison between The Duke and Duchess of Windsor and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in this sort of situation. The Duke of Windsor had been King and his decision to walk away resulted in a crisis in both the RF and the government of the day. There was bad blood on all sides for many years. The situation with Harry and Meghan may be frustrating for the RF and individual family members may be angry and hurt but, despite how I suspect Team Sussex and their sycophants see things, the BRF didn’t base its future plans on the The PoW’s second son and his wife and their exit from full time royal life hasn’t damaged the institution in any way. Go figure. So as long as they don’t cross the line by, for example, becoming overtly partisan with their political activities in the US, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be welcome at events like Trooping the Colour or the statue unveiling.

 

[Ista]

Several off topic posts and responses have been deleted. This is a thread to discuss general news about the Sussex family, it is not the place to make comparisons between the British royal family and the royal families of other countries.

Any further off topic posts will be deleted without notice.

 

[Durham]

1. "Exploited " please. The reality is that Harry & Meghan bring much attention, publicity and good outcomes for their patronages. You may not like the couple but their positive contributions to their charities cannot be denied.

2. Polarizing or not. The Queen said what she said. Her opinion of the couple is count and what will allow them to participate in *HER* Family events.

3. Again you can deny, ignore, or undermine the facts- but they remain the facts. Even in the pouring rain, fans of the couple came out cheering for the couple.

That Harry & Meghan are "so disliked" that it is "shocking" is obviously your opinion. The royal family doesn't feel this way (and lets be honest they could let that be known in a diplomatic way) and neither do the British public as a whole.

1 The outcomes for the charities are not the point here. The issue is the motivation of the couple. They want publicity & charities provide them with an opportunity for exposure. It’s what celebrities do & sadly that’s what they seem to be becoming. It diminishes them I think.

Incidentally I can provide a link to a study that disputes the idea that royal patronage is actually any more effective than non royal patronage if you are interested.

It’s not about liking or not liking them but rather about being uneasy about their conduct. Being concerned about the impact of their behaviour on how people view the monarchy in Britain. The context is a lot more nuanced than just liking or disliking them. I have posted about this in the future of the British monarchy thread.

2 As others have pointed out those remarks from The Queen were a long time ago. So who knows?

3 It’s not the facts that are in dispute but rather the inferences that are drawn from them. Counting how many people turned up & how they behaved is surely not a scientific method of measuring opinion. You gov has information about the attitudes of the public towards the couple that have been discussed on the future of the British monarchy thread so it's not just about my opinion. The data is clear. I don’t know how members of the royal family feel. How could any of us know?

The royal family exists to be a focal point for unity so the fact that there are really quite negative feelings about some of them is a shock I think. And unprecedented possibly, at least in modern times. What the long term consequences might be I don't know.

 

[Kataryn]

The royal family exists to be a focal point for unity so the fact that there are really quite negative feelings about some of them is a shock I think. And unprecedented possibly, at least in modern times. What the long term consequences might be I don't know.

Honestly? The British Royal family exists because the country never changed their position of souverain from the most senior family member to a president. Everything else is just as it is. Changes like the country changes. There was a time the king could condemn people to death. Today there is no death penalty in Britain anymore. Once they had to marry princes/ses. Now the okay of the souverain is enough for the first 6 most senior family members. Once people had to curtsey to all members of the family, now it's up to each citizen to curtsey or not. Changes happen all the time. Most because the RF wants them or allows them to be. Britain certainly is no example of a country where the citizens change the way of the monarchy or the life of their RF.



So in 2020 a prince of the realm and his wife decided to do their own thing and went to America to do that? Why ever not? What is this that members of this forum claim the right to do as they please (at least I guess they do? I do within the borders of our laws!) and want Harry to be remnant of his family's past? The Royal family is a family first and then the "firm". What they are not is living a life of the past for the amusement of the people who "follow" them. Let the people like Meghan & Harry and all others stop judging them, IMHO, as long as they don't break the laws. Let them use the name (including the title, as this is how it works in the UK) they were given as senior family members. They don't ask to be called Their Royal Highnesses, after all, and their son is a simple "Master" Mountbatten-Windsor. So what is this all about anyway???

 

[Durham]

Honestly? The British Royal family exists because the country never changed their position of souverain from the most senior family member to a president. Everything else is just as it is. Changes like the country changes. There was a time the king could condemn people to death. Today there is no death penalty in Britain anymore. Once they had to marry princes/ses. Now the okay of the souverain is enough for the first 6 most senior family members. Once people had to curtsey to all members of the family, now it's up to each citizen to curtsey or not. Changes happen all the time. Most because the RF wants them or allows them to be. Britain certainly is no example of a country where the citizens change the way of the monarchy or the life of their RF.



So in 2020 a prince of the realm and his wife decided to do their own thing and went to America to do that? Why ever not? What is this that members of this forum claim the right to do as they please (at least I guess they do? I do within the borders of our laws!) and want Harry to be remnant of his family's past? The Royal family is a family first and then the "firm". What they are not is living a life of the past for the amusement of the people who "follow" them. Let the people like Meghan & Harry and all others stop judging them, IMHO, as long as they don't break the laws. Let them use the name (including the title, as this is how it works in the UK) they were given as senior family members. They don't ask to be called Their Royal Highnesses, after all, and their son is a simple "Master" Mountbatten-Windsor. So what is this all about anyway???

I would have thought that the comment about the royal family being a focus for unity was fairly uncontroversial. On the the monarchy website it states explicitly that one of the roles of the royal family is to "strengthen national unity and stability".

The manner of their leaving didn't do them any favours for a start. They're free to do whatever they want as Mr & Mrs M-W. If they insist on using British titles for their own personal advancement then they will be scrutinised because it can reflect on the monarchy in Britain. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's not personal.

 

[Mbruno]

Let them use the name (including the title, as this is how it works in the UK) they were given as senior family members. They don't ask to be called Their Royal Highnesses, after all, and their son is a simple "Master" Mountbatten-Windsor. So what is this all about anyway???

You said it correctly: "this is how it works in the UK". But they are not in the UK, they are in the US and that is not how it works in the US.


Meghan is simply "Rachel Meghan Markle" in any US document (or "Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" if she chooses to change her name legally to use her husband's family name). Titles such as "Duchess of Sussex" are not legally recognized in the US, so it seems odd that Meghan feels she needs to use it to have an edge or gain attention from other people and the media.

 

[Denville]

You said it correctly: "this is how it works in the UK". But they are not in the UK, they are in the US and that is not how it works in the US.


Meghan is simply "Rachel Meghan Markle" in any US document (or "Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" if she chooses to change her name legally to use her husband's family name). Titles such as "Duchess of Sussex" are not legally recognized in the US, so it seems odd that Meghan feels she needs to use it to have an edge or gain attention from other people and the media.

Precisely. they have chosen to leave their work as royals, they have chosen to give up living in the UK.. so why use their royal and British titles there if they are now as it seem they are, committed to life in America and possibly a public career in the US involving some political activity. For one thing, in the US, titles are not recognized and IF Meg were to run for office, she would have to do so as Megan Markle or Meghan M WIndsor.. not as the Duchess of Sussex. So why is she using this title in her various chats with charities and campaigns and interviews? Well obviously because she knows that as ex actress Megan Markle, she would not be noticed or asked to join in these events.

 

[Denville]

Exactly. The Queen may be disappointed in Harry
and will know very well that a dramatic little narrative about Harry and Meghan’s brief time back with members of the family will follow these appearances, (I wonder how Kate will disappoint Meghan this time?) by way of Mr. Scobie and other favoured Sussex family pets. But she’s not going to add fuel to the fire by needlessly refusing them things that don’t really matter. The Queen and the RF in general have no need to be petty.

To me there’s no comparison between The Duke and Duchess of Windsor and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex in this sort of situation. The Duke of Windsor had been King and his decision to walk away resulted in a crisis in both the RF and the government of the day. There was bad blood on all sides for many years. The situation with Harry and Meghan may be frustrating for the RF and individual family members may be angry and hurt but, despite how I suspect Team Sussex and their sycophants see things, the BRF didn’t base its future plans on the The PoW’s second son and his wife and their exit from full time royal life hasn’t damaged the institution in any way. Go figure. So as long as they don’t cross the line by, for example, becoming overtly partisan with their political activities in the US, I don’t see why they wouldn’t be welcome at events like Trooping the Colour or the statue unveiling.

I agree.. I thin that their behavior has been selfish and has done unnecessary harm to relations within the family and has removed 2 workers from the royal working party.. It HAS been damaging behaviour but not on the scale of Andrew's or the Windsors.
And its not the 1930s or the 1950s and they are not going to be treated as outcasts. They are welcome probably to return to royal life if they wish, that's the point of the 1 year review but If they do return it will be with a lot of caution. Truth is I suspect Meg at least wont want to come, but will recognise that it looks better if she does turn up and is seen as Meghan teh Duchess of Sussex at a few charity events in the UK and at her Mohter in laws statue unveiling...

 

[Osipi]

Precisely. they have chosen to leave their work as royals, they have chosen to give up living in the UK.. so why use their royal and British titles there if they are now as it seem they are, committed to life in America and possibly a public career in the US involving some political activity. For one thing, in the US, titles are not recognized and IF Meg were to run for office, she would have to do so as Megan Markle or Meghan M WIndsor.. not as the Duchess of Sussex. So why is she using this title in her various chats with charities and campaigns and interviews? Well obviously because she knows that as ex actress Megan Markle, she would not be noticed or asked to join in these events.

I have to agree with this. I learned this lesson very early in life when my dad was running for political office. As his chief door to door representative getting signatures for a petition to get dad on the ballot, of course I asked my favorite teachers that were nuns to sign it. I was totally gobsmacked to see that they didn't sign the petition with "Sister Mary Vaccum Cleaner" but their "legal names". Made me realize that nuns were people too just like the rest of us even though they had God on their side and we were scared to death getting in trouble with them.

BTW: Dad did get on the ballot but didn't win. It was a good race though and educational for me and the mudslinging and name calling we see today was totally missing.

 

[Betsypaige]

An appearancce at Diana's statue's unveiling is likely considering that even the Duke and Duchess of Windsor broke their exile to be present at the unveling of a statue of Queen Mary.

I am not betting on seeing them on the balcony at Trooping after their surrogates' attacks on the Cambridges.

I agree. Will they be there? I suspect Harry will, though as he is so unpopular now, I don’t know if it’s a good idea. About the balcony, no one is going to want a replay of the Commonwealth Service, where there’s so much awkwardness between the Sussexes and Cambridge’s. That doesn’t even take into consideration the awkward relationships between the Sussexes and everyone else. It’s supposed to be a joyous day, but if H and M make official appearances, it might turn into something less than that.

 

[Denville]

I agree. Will they be there? I suspect Harry will, though as he is so unpopular now, I don’t know if it’s a good idea. About the balcony, no one is going to want a replay of the Commonwealth Service, where there’s so much awkwardness between the Sussexes and Cambridge’s. That doesn’t even take into consideration the awkward relationships between the Sussexes and everyone else. It’s supposed to be a joyous day, but if H and M make official appearances, it might turn into something less than that.

I hope if they come, there will be a firm talking to, as Will should not have shown his irritation with them last time. I dont blame him for feeling annoyed but showing it was wrong. But I expect that tehy will come, if possible..

 

[Betsypaige]

You said it correctly: "this is how it works in the UK". But they are not in the UK, they are in the US and that is not how it works in the US.


Meghan is simply "Rachel Meghan Markle" in any US document (or "Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" if she chooses to change her name legally to use her husband's family name). Titles such as "Duchess of Sussex" are not legally recognized in the US, so it seems odd that Meghan feels she needs to use it to have an edge or gain attention from other people and the media.

I don’t think Meghan cares if her title isn’t legally recognized here...or rather, I doubt she’s even thought about that. IMO, she thinks the title will impress people, so she’ll use it...and she’s right, at least to an extent. When she was plain old Meghan Markle, few outside her inner circle cared about her opinions. “Duchess of Sussex” automatically conveys a certain level of respect from many, the way “Doctor” does.

 

[Denville]

I don’t think Meghan cares if her title isn’t legally recognized here...or rather, I doubt she’s even thought about that. IMO, she thinks the title will impress people, so she’ll use it...and she’s right, at least to an extent. When she was plain old Meghan Markle, few outside her inner circle cared about her opinions. “Duchess of Sussex” automatically conveys a certain level of respect from many, the way “Doctor” does.

Of course she thinks the title will get her some notice... why else would she use it?

 

[Kataryn]

You said it correctly: "this is how it works in the UK". But they are not in the UK, they are in the US and that is not how it works in the US.


Meghan is simply "Rachel Meghan Markle" in any US document (or "Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" if she chooses to change her name legally to use her husband's family name). Titles such as "Duchess of Sussex" are not legally recognized in the US, so it seems odd that Meghan feels she needs to use it to have an edge or gain attention from other people and the media.

We are not talking "legal" use of the title, we are talking of using the "name" that describe the person best to any US-American. And that for Meghan is "Duchess of Sussex" much more than "Markle" or "Mountbatten-Windsor" ever will be.

Two other cases that comes to mind: 1.) the (adopted) "Prince of Anhalt" that Zsa Zsa Gabor was married to. The people surrounding them delighted in pretending he was a "real German" prince - which he isn't. Or 2.) Dr. Mario-Max Prinz von Schaumburg-Lippe (also adopted, but his mother was married to his adopted father Prince Waldemar till his recent death at close to 80 years, so they had a real father-son relationship, even if the Head of the house does not acknowledge him) who added the US-christian name "Prince" as his first name, so he could legally call himself "Prince Mario Max of Schaumburg-Lippe" in the US -which is very tacky, IMHO.

Meghan and Harry are the "real" stuff compared to that! They are the future king's son and his wife, they hold the rank and style of TRH in the UK. Their legal status is Prince and Princess of the Uk and they hold the title of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. So why not present Meghan as "in the UK she is known as the Duchess of Sussex, the grand-daughter in law of the queen. Let's welcome her! Hello, Meghan." Do not talk about the title or no title, son't use anything but her first name on addressing her and tell the people that there is a country where she is legally klnown as the duchess and that she "is" the queen's granddaughter-in-law. Call her British husband by his princely title and off you go. All correct, no lie and still the media makes the most of Meghan's title without using it in any "legal" sense. Or answer the phone with "The Sussex residence" - that's true as well, isn't it?

 

[ACO]

Harry and Meghan visited a preschool learning center yesterday. Planted Forget Me Nots in honor of Diana.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEl2R8JgFKC

 

[Denville]

We are not talking "legal" use of the title, we are talking of using the "name" that describe the person best to any US-American. And that for Meghan is "Duchess of Sussex" much more than "Markle" or "Mountbatten-Windsor" ever will be.

Tw.

Meghan and Harry are the "real" stuff compared to that! They are the future king's son and his wife, they hold the rank and style of TRH in the UK. Their legal status is Prince and Princess of the Uk and they hold the title of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. So why not present Meghan as "in the UK she is known as the Duchess of Sussex, the grand-daughter in law of the queen. Let's welcome her! Hello, Meghan." Do not talk about the title or no title, son't use anything but her first name on addressing her and tell the people that there is a country where she is legally klnown as the duchess and that she "is" the queen's granddaughter-in-law. Call her British husband by his princely title and off you go. All correct, no lie and still the media makes the most of Meghan's title without using it in any "legal" sense. Or answer the phone with "The Sussex residence" - that's true as well, isn't it?

Why do tehy need to do all this in a republic which does not allow people to use title of nobility when they are involved in politics? They are settled in the US. Titles mean nothing there, and Meghan could not use her Duchess title if she was running for office. Why does she need given her political and social beleifs to use this title?

 

[Curryong]

Harry and Meghan visited a preschool learning center yesterday. Planted Forget Me Nots in honor of Diana.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEl2R8JgFKC

I'm sure this was a great suprise for the children. IMO this was a lovely gesture in memory of Harry's mother. Forget me nots are of course associated for Harry with his charity Sentebale. And small children are also very much linked with Diana. I hope these flowers are planted near the new statue.

 

[Pranter]

By the time there's another Trooping quite a bit of time will have passed (and that assumes there will be one in 2021 based on Covid)...they are a family, regardless of the anger/angst/upset ppl feel on the behalf of the Queen (and the rest of the family they've never met) it is like all families. Family membersl have disagreements and they typically mend fences and move on.

I fully expect to see The Sussexs in the U.K. next year assuming Covid has settled down some and travel is more advisable. Because they live in the U.S. doesn't mean they won't spend weeks or months in the U.K. as needed.

At the Diana event next year I could easily see how the Cambridge children and Archie would be there, although I'm not convinced they will be there.

The event at the preschool was sweet. Nice to see them so casual.

As far as titles go, they will use them (as most anyone does with titles) when needed, past that they really don't seem to be concerned with being addressed Duke/Duchess etc. They've shown in the past they prefer and/or are fine with being called Harry/Meghan.



LaRae

 

[Denville]

I fully expect to see The Sussexs in the U.K. next year assuming Covid has settled down some and travel is more advisable. Because they live in the U.S. doesn't mean they won't spend weeks or months in the U.K. as needed.





LaRae

What exactly are tehy needed for? Diana's memorial, yes, private visits to the family, yes.. but what else?

 

[Pranter]

What exactly are tehy needed for? Diana's memorial, yes, private visits to the family, yes.. but what else?

Any charities they are involved with and any family events they are requested to be there for. Plus they may just want to be there for their own reasons.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

Well 2021 will bring Harry and Meghan overseas (if all goes well) for Invictus Games, Rugby Finals, London Marathon, Meghan's trial, family events and patronage visits. And anything else they want.

They will travel. I never thought they wouldn't. This year has changed everyone's plans.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

Well here goes being a private person. People sure listen more to a Dss and Duke then they would to any actress,or do they?

 

[muriel]

Harry and Meghan visited a preschool learning center yesterday. Planted Forget Me Nots in honor of Diana.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEl2R8JgFKC

In all these years, barring the 10th anniversary of Diana's death where a service was held at Guards Chapel, I have never seen either William or Harry publicly mark their mother's death. Query what caused Harry to do so now, with a photographer in tow?

 

[Lilyflo]

Harry and Meghan visited a preschool learning center yesterday. Planted Forget Me Nots in honor of Diana.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEl2R8JgFKC

Maybe I've missed something but I can't see any Forget-Me-Nots and the charity doesn't say anything about them planting things in honour of Diana. Where does it say that?