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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps this will be a biggie that is discussed at the year end review? Maybe these changes will be made to further emphasize that Harry and Meghan are not hinging their successes (or failures) on their peerage titles. Harry and Meghan Sussex would work for me very well. Mountbatten-Windsor is a mouthful. Windsor would be out for me as it is the name of the House of Windsor which encompasses the royal family of the UK.

The companies will probably go along with not using Duke and Duchess of Sussex but the media is a totally different beast. Their stories hinge on "royals behaving badly" and it garners them a lot of green dollars in the pockets. :D



The purchase of the home in California sent a clear message to me. It tells me that they're putting down permanent roots in the US. A place to keep and raise a family. That purchase, in and of itself, tells me there is no intention of going back to the UK with their tails between their legs stating "we've made a mistake". ?

What? we're talking about Meghan not owning a place pre-Harry and how it relates to her supposed wealth.
 
Honestly, I doubt this recent investment in Clevr Blends by Meghan is necessarily going to be a source of huge income for her. The exact terms of the investment have not been revealed. Plus, this might be only one of the investments Meghan has been involved with, as per the wording in articles implies there may be other women-owned businesses she has financially supported. In any case, there's nothing wrong with making money, spreading wealth with others, and enjoying the fruits of your labor.

FWIW, the ethical part of the Clevr Blends brand has to do with the company's focus on actively participating in community wellbeing and advocacy for food justice. One of the organizations the company is collaborating with is El Centro SB, a group that supports regional aid and community resilience. These details are provided on the company's website and in some of the articles reporting on Meghan's investment.
https://www.clevrblends.com/pages/ourstory

I agree. I you want to make money, a startup would be very risky. There are better ways to do it.
 
What? we're talking about Meghan not owning a place pre-Harry and how it relates to her supposed wealth.

And.... I stated my opinion on that angle in a previous post. See post #2189. :D
 
Yeah I’m not understanding what Meghan not owning her home meant. She was in that place in Toronto for about 6 years. It was her base as she worked in Canada. When she wasn’t working she was mostly traveling. Why would she own a home elsewhere?

When she settled she did buy a home.
 
Like the York girls Harry and Meghan do use their names for business. They can't use their titles.

People don't have amnesia. They aren't going to forget who Harry is if he goes by Harry Mountbatten. Meghan was a known actress and charity spokeswoman before she ever married him. They could change their name to smith and it would be no different.

As for the Yorks, when they were working? They still do.

They do use their titles 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex' or (Prince) Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex all the time. So, what exactly do you mean by they do not use their titles? How would you call their use of their ducal titles in that case?
 
Last edited:
They do use their titles 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex' or (Prince) Harry, the Duke of Sussex and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex all the time. So, what do you mean by they do not use their titles? How would you call their use of their ducal titles in that case?

To me, they're using their *peerage* titles and not *royal* titles. One can be a peer of the UK and not be royal. Where has Harry actually referred to himself as "Prince Harry". That usage is at the fault of others and not Harry that I've seen.

It's my understanding that they are prohibited from using their "HRH" not their peerage titles. Have I read the conditions wrong perhaps? ?
 
To me, they're using their *peerage* titles and not *royal* titles. One can be a peer of the UK and not be royal. Where has Harry actually referred to himself as "Prince Harry". That usage is at the fault of others and not Harry that I've seen.

It's my understanding that they are prohibited from using their "HRH" not their peerage titles. Have I read the conditions wrong perhaps? ?

The claim was that they were using their names instead of their titles. You are addressing a different issue :flowers:

I put the 'Prince' between brackets because it has been used in official communication about him; but not necessarily by him personally (but I would expect both of them to make sure that press releases etc about their business endeavors would be reviewed before publishing - and the Spotify one did use 'prince' as was pointed out before).
 
Yeah I’m not understanding what Meghan not owning her home meant. She was in that place in Toronto for about 6 years. It was her base as she worked in Canada. When she wasn’t working she was mostly traveling. Why would she own a home elsewhere?

When she settled she did buy a home.

Why would she onw a home?? Why not? Most people want to have a home and not waste money on rent... And people keep saying that she was a millionare in her own right before she married Harry... Im sure that most millionaires own at least one home.
 
Why would she onw a home?? Why not? Most people want to have a home and not waste money on rent... And people keep saying that she was a millionare in her own right before she married Harry... Im sure that most millionaires own at least one home.

Even looking at the British Royal Family and the perks they have and the trust funds and will never be known as being "poor folk', very few of them actually *own* their own residences. Good case of 'millionaires that don't own one home" in my book. ;)

I'll state it again. Having a lot of money doesn't necessitate the want and need to buy and own homes. Situations do. Meghan as a single, divorced actress working in Canada for years probably never felt the *need* to buy and own a home no matter how hefty her bank account was at the time. ?
 
And.... I stated my opinion on that angle in a previous post. See post #2189. :D

I was responding to this part of your comment:
"If it was me and I had a recurring role in a show filmed in Canada or even had a job in Toronto that I knew didn't have permanency, I would have rented a place to live rather than buy. I rented for years after my divorce in different places until the time came I knew I wanted to put down roots once again. Now I can't be budged from my home. Money doesn't mean you prefer to buy over renting. Situations do."

So you were talking about not owning a house while temporary living in a city or country,
To which I responded:
"Regarding the buying vs. renting thing in relation to Meghan wealth: for me personally when I talk about her not owning property it's not about owning one in Toronto but in LA"

Than you veered off and responded by talking about their CA house, when the topic was about Meghan in her pre-Harry days.
 
Even looking at the British Royal Family and the perks they have and the trust funds and will never be known as being "poor folk', very few of them actually *own* their own residences. Good case of 'millionaires that don't own one home" in my book. ;)

I'll state it again. Having a lot of money doesn't necessitate the want and need to buy and own homes. Situations do. Meghan as a single, divorced actress working in Canada for years probably never felt the *need* to buy and own a home no matter how hefty her bank account was at the time. ?

That is hardly the same thing. THe RF is the premier family in the UK and owns masses of property. so they have set up companies to manage that property and the best way to do so is to rent out their houses to either tenants or members of the family. They make money on the houses they rent out and the family members who rent them usually pay a peppercorn rent...
Meghan was a young actress, making her own way in the world. She didn't have much family money. She wasn't going to get relatives offering her a nice property for a minimal rent.. and given the nature of acting she could not be sure how many jobs she would get - so I can't imagine, if she was really making good money in her acting.. why she would not buy a house in LA which she could rent out while she was working in Canada.. and move back to if she got jobs in HOllywood....
 
Both of Meghan's parents own properties in the LA area, including her mother, to whom she is close, so it's hardly likely that Meghan was homeless at any time when she was in California. Doria's home in particular is supposedly worth quite a bit of money, or so it was said a couple of years ago, and Meghan is her only child. Doria owns her home as it was inherited from her father Alvin.

Doria's home is estimated below to be worth about 678,000 pounds (more of course in US dollars.) And it's likely to go up in value in the future.

https://www.hellomagazine.com/homes...rkle-mother-doria-ragland-home-photos-inside/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_Park–Windsor_Hills,_California

Plus, Meghan was hardly living from pay cheque to pay cheque. Besides her Suits salary (and nobody knows exactly how much she got) there were advertisements, sponsorship deals, The Tig, and she had appeared in movies.

Plenty of young(ish) people on decent salaries including actors, especially if they are single, don't own property and prefer to be fancy free. Meghan's ex, Trevor Engelson, never bought the house in LA the couple lived in during their dating period and marriage, nor bought other property, though presumably, as he was a producer and came from a prosperous family, he could afford it.

https://www.insider.com/meghan-markle-former-los-angeles-home-for-sale-2019-8
 
Last edited:
I like the Sussexes, am on Twitter and post on several Royal forums. I have never heard or read any fan posts that claim that Meghan was akin to Grace Kelly. However, she wasn't completely unknown either, which is what 9/10s of people who enter the acting profession end up being.
 
All of a sudden, there are articles "Harry would have left the Royal family w/o Meghan" what a load of crock? I mean he never looked unhappy before! Why would he had left? It's sad, his life will now be behind a boring podcast.

He has left his friends, his family and the only home he ever known for a woman he hasn't even know for 5 years. Didn't they meet in 2016, married in 2018? Very sad.

Harry has looked unhappy sometime before his marriage and in some pictures he looked bored accompanying his brother and sister in law to events. There IS COVID now which makes all the difference. Good friends cannot see each other if they live far apart. Elderly people are isolated from their families and can only see them through Skype, et al. The royal family is separated and there is no Big Family gathering due to Covid. Different world now. I never heard he left his friends and he is in communication with them Charles says he skypes with them and has been in touch many times with Archie. For all that is known he and Meghan and Archie would have paid visits to the UK if COVID had not happened.

It depends on the couple how long the courtship is, there is no fixed rule Some couples who have dated for years (like Beatrice and Dave Clark) and it fizzles out even despite their "getting to know each other" first. I wish Harry and Meghan well and he has a family of his own now--they married when they were in their thirties and not some teens eloping after knowing each other a few weeks. With COVID hopefully gone, the entire picture should change. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Plus-- who else (apart from Grace) has married into any Royal family anywhere who possessed world-wide fame? No-one! Letizia, whom I admire and like, was nationally known, but that's it. Why, presumably in an attempt to diminish her and any former achievements, should actress Meghan be held to a standard no other married-in to royal families but one has matched or even come near?
 
I've never heard of the comparison between Meghan and Grace Kelly either. It's really kind of comparing apples and oranges anyways.

The greats such as Kelly, Hepburn and Monroe reached stardom when their movies had very little competition in what the people were exposed to. Many theaters were showing the same movie in different areas of town. Today there are many, many actors/actresses that are successful in shows where the focus is on an ensemble of characters rather than one main "star". People are more drawn to the genre of shows (crime, romcom, medical etc) than they are to a main "star" of the show, IMO.

Even romcom, happy, sappy and sometimes even crappy Hallmark movies basically follow the same pattern in every single one of them. First hour is the lead up to the "main event". Boy meets girl and they realize each other at the hour mark. The rest of the movie is the build up to the final "happily ever after" scenario. Meghan joined a list of actresses that followed this pattern in Hallmark movies. She didn't exactly stand out from the rest of them. :D

https://medium.com/pop-off/the-plot-of-every-single-hallmark-christmas-movie-806f943d492a
 
Her fan base. They're claiming she was on a par with Grace Kelly. She wasn't.

Actually I feel people who dislike her claim others say this the most so they can knock it down. People really downplay her achievements. She was part of an ensemble cast on a popular cable TV show. She was hardly A list but she was fairly successful. It doesn’t have to be more than that.
 
I had no idea but a Google Search of 'Meghan Markle Grace Kelly' returned 849,000 Results. With at least on the first few pages both articles that focus on what they have in common and others that state how Meghan isn't Grace Kelly (or should heed her advice).
 
Lee Radziwill, Jacqueline Kennedy's sister, married a royal, Prince Stanisław Albrecht Radziwiłł,and had a title as a result, she did go in for acting and was in a TV production of Laura, which got bad reviews. Other than That I don't recall others (in addition to those mentioned in this thread)who were actresses and married royalty.
 
Lee Radziwill, Jacqueline Kennedy's sister, married a royal, Prince Stanisław Albrecht Radziwiłł,and had a title as a result, she did go in for acting and was in a TV production of Laura, which got bad reviews. Other than That I don't recall others who married royals who acted.

Lady Frederick Windsor (Sophie Winkleman) is an actress and continues to act, even after marriage. She was the older Susan in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Claudia Winkleman (Strictly Come Dancing co-presenter) is her paternal half-sister.

Lord Frederick Windsor (son of Prince Michael of Kent) however, is not a working royal. I think in most instances, particularly in the show business, she is still introduced as Sophie Winkleman not Lady Frederick Windsor
 
Lady Frederick Windsor (Sophie Winkleman) is an actress and continues to act, even after marriage. She was the older Susan in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Claudia Winkleman (Strictly Come Dancing co-presenter) is her paternal half-sister.

Lord Frederick Windsor (son of Prince Michael of Kent) however, is not a working royal. I think in most instances, particularly in the show business, she is still introduced as Sophie Winkleman not Lady Frederick Windsor

Apart from when specifically talking to Hello or Tatler about her life Sophie Winkleman is addressed as just that and certainly credited as that professionally, never Lady Fredrick Windsor professionally. She's been in a variety of things since her marriage including Red Dwarf and The Walking Dead. But the expectations (and perks and publicity) are very different when you're a second cousin or married in Kent or Gloucester as opposed to supposed to being a full time royal and "the future of the monarchy".
 
Yes, but Meghan is required by detractors to have reached a level of fame and achievement (simply because she was in the acting profession) that no one in any other Royal family really, except Grace Kelly, got to. Apparently, because she didn't, she is to be regarded as an also-ran, sneered at as a nothing, in spite of being employed regularly on a cable show for seven years in a profession where unemployment is rife.

Again, I ask, why is Meghan being held to that sort of standard when no other married-in bride in any Royal family anywhere, hit the absolute top of their professions (those that had them) before marriage? That's not to put down the former careers of Matilde, Maxima, Daniel, Letizia and the rest, but why weren't questions asked about their former professional lives (and of the others without professions of any kind) if only the Stratosphere will do when you enter a Royal family?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but Meghan is required by detractors to have reached a level of fame and achievement (simply because she was in the acting profession) that no one in any other Royal family really, except Grace Kelly, got to. Apparently, because she didn't, she is to be regarded as an also-ran, sneered at as a nothing, in spite of being employed regularly on a cable show for seven years in a profession where unemployment is rife.

Again, I ask, why is Meghan being held to that sort of standard when no other married-in bride in any Royal family anywhere, hit the absolute top of their professions (those that had them) before marriage? That's not to put down the former careers of Matilde, Maxima, Daniel, Letizia and the rest, but why weren't questions asked about their former professional lives and the others without professions of any kind if only the very very best will do when you enter a Royal family.
If I am reading the discussion correctly. The people you call 'detractors' do not require Meghan to have reached such a level of fame and achievement; they are mainly pointing out that she did NOT. Which means that her current fame is due to her marriage to Harry, not to her own achievement as actress.

Although, I would add, she was successful enough (in acting and in making a name for herself within a limited circle by among other things her blog and her active outreach to the people she was interested in meeting/connecting with to further her goals) to manage to move in circles where she had the opportunity to be introduced to Harry.
 
Meghan lived and worked in the US/Canada where there was minimal chance of meeting Harry or any other Royal, for much of the time. So, if that was a goal it was a rather far-fetched one.

And the other married-in royals in Royal families everywhere? Are they constantly bombarded and questioned online about the level of their former professional achievements, if they have any, and receive Twitter put downs about not having reached the very top? Not as far as I can see!
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the GK/MM comparison either. Most oftge discussions I see deal with her life now.

I do not understand why ppl want to believe she couldn’t buy a house if she wanted to? That the reason she didn’t indicates she was less successful?

Seriously folks...can we not just agree she had success and had the means to purchase a home if she wanted? Ppl making a lot less buy homes/flats all over the world...just turn on House Hunters International!!!

To more important things...fingers crossed we get a holiday pic like last year!!

LaRae
 
Yes, a lovely family photo on a Christmas card if possible. Longing to see what Archie looks like now!
 
Meghan lived and worked in the US/Canada where there was minimal chance of meeting Harry or any other Royal, for much of the time. So, if that was a goal it was a rather far-fetched one.

And the other married-in royals in Royal families everywhere? Are they constantly bombarded and questioned online about the level of their former professional achievements, if they have any, and receive Twitter put downs about not having reached the very top? Not as far as I can see!

In terms of put down on twitter when I searched "Sophie Winkleman", some Sussex Squads have been vicious towards her, after she did an interview with The Times. She mentioned how she was well supported and treated well by the Royal Family. Not only are they discrediting her success, they are willing to drag her race and religion into it, as well as directing blame of mother-in-law's brooch on her (Sophie). The accusation of racism have been thrown tirelessly, which could have serious libel consequences.

https://twitter.com/search?q=Sophie Winkleman&src=typeahead_click

How actress Sophie Winkleman married into the royal family . . . and survived
Not all actresses who join the Firm run off. Sophie Winkleman, who played Big Suze in the sitcom Peep Show, fell for the 49th in line to the throne. So how’s it going?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-into-the-royal-family-and-survived-j9q9t5hqc

Let's not forget that Charles and Camilla were attacked whilst arriving at the Royal Variety Performance by car. The student protestors "racked windows and threw paint on the Rolls-Royce", even though the student fees vote lies solely on the government and parliamentary vote. Camilla later joked about the incident.

The royal couple had looked visibly shaken when they arrived at the London Palladium for the Royal Variety performance, but Camilla later joked about the incident, saying: "First time for everything" as she left the theatre.

Prince Charles and Camilla caught up in London violence after student fees vote
Attack on royal car as tumult grips capital city's centre following MPs' vote for measure trebling English university fees
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/dec/09/charles-camilla-car-attacked-fees-protest

When Catherine married into the Royal Family, she was being criticised by modern feminist and republicans for "not having a career" and submissive to the "outdated, sexist" institution simply by following protocol.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a lovely family photo on a Christmas card if possible. Longing to see what Archie looks like now!

Yes!!! I bet he has changed a lot since his birthday video.

LaRae
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom