Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...al-family-news

The academicians suggest that Meghan's advocacy for feminism is now muted/ silenced. I wouldn't go as vociferously far as they do in their assessment. But it's true that Meghan has had to make a number of personal sacrifices as a result of marrying into this ancient family and royal institution. At the moment, she's still adjusting to a new marriage, her first pregnancy, a new country, and a different lifestyle, so I wouldn't be quite as harsh as the academic writers appear to be.

It's an express article so i'm not taking it hugely seriously, but what I do agree with is your assessment MaiaMia. I'm not Meghans biggest fan, but what I do think she is doing for feminism is being in the royal family itself. Now that probably sounds like a silly thing to say, but she can do SO much in the position she's in. Yes she has to be careful with it, don't rock the boat when you've just got in it, let it settle first but then give it a good tip!

It's something that unfortunately i haven't seen from Catherine, and it's something I want so badly from Meghan is to really use her position to help people. She has started, her unannounced trips to places, and her most recent to Brinsworth is on the right track, but she needs to keep it that way.

[Dman]

It Isn’t true, folks, Meghan remains a feminist and no one is making her give that up.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I don’t have time for a longer post right now, I’ll get back to this topic later for a more thorough discussion. What I will say is this, everyone operates within the confines of SOMETHING. Even these academics. They operate within the confines of policies set forth in their school and they operate within the confines of their lives. It doesn’t mean feminism is dead or gone because they make certain compromises. Meghan certainly isn’t silenced. She has to sidestep certain topics, but ALL of us have situations that puts us in certain positions where we can’t say EVERYTHING without consequences. Doesn’t mean we aren’t feminists and can’t work on the issue of gender equality.

This is an excellent point, and worthwhile remembering when discussing not just Meghan, but every member of every royal family. They are all constrained by something, especially when the topic touches on something that could be construed as having to do with their country's constitution. A case in point is the recent kerfuffle in Japan over remarks made by Prince Akishino pertaining to the funding for his brother's upcoming enthronement.

So it will be up to Meghan to figure out how to make her points and speak for her causes within the confines of her role and position. I'm fairly confident that she's going to figure out how to hit that balance, even if it takes her some trial and error, and even if there are issues she'd like to speak out on and and can't.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Dman

It Isn’t true, folks, Meghan remains a feminist and no one is making her give that up.

No, she's not giving up being a feminist and the article is not about that. It's about how she has to change and adapt to a new role to comply with the rules of the royal family. It's like... She can't talk freely and openly about abortions or Brexit or any political issue (while she could say anything she wanted to before). It doesn't mean she's suddenly not a feminist, just that she's playing with a different set of rules.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...al-family-news



I think what Meghan is confronting is part of an age-old question surrounding the role of women generally in our patriarchal culture.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize the Britsih Royal Family as "patriarchal" when the head of the family actually happens to be a woman (The Queen) !


More so than being "patriarchal", what the BRF has to be above all nowadays is politically neitral, and that's where Meghan's "being silenced" is coming from IMHO. Meghan was too much of a political activist before getting married and that is obviously incompatible with her new status as a princess of the United Kingdom.

[Jacknch]

Several posts have been deleted / edited to remove comments / responses to comments that were distracting and moving the discussion away from the topic. Let's avoid analysing the way in which other members post or making personal comments about one another. Thank you.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize the Britsih Royal Family as "patriarchal" when the head of the family actually happens to be a woman (The Queen) !


More so than being "patriarchal", what the BRF has to be above all nowadays is politically neitral, and that's where Meghan's "being silenced" is coming from IMHO. Meghan was too much of a political activist before getting married and that is obviously incompatible with her new status as a princess of the United Kingdom.

I think you're right - feminism isn't the only issue. It's the fact that Meghan needs to steer away from politics when she speaks out on causes dear to her heart. It will also be impossible for her to speak out on inequities due to social class or privilege now that she's at the top of a social structure based on them.

But it's also fair to call the BRF patriarchal. The Queen is only Queen because she didn't have a brother and while Parliament has altered the rules in favor of gender neutral succession, the Queen has limited peerage titles to male members of her family. Princess Margaret didn't receive a peerage, her husband did. Princess Anne didn't receive a peerage but her younger brothers did. And in all cases the titles can only be inherited by sons, not daughters.

[Fros]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...d-fears-royal/

I am not sure if this is the right thread but a great article in the telegraph about Meghan's possible future work with British theaters. How they are seen as elitist and non-inclusive and how Meghan could work with theatres to make them more inclusive.

Fascinating insight about how the royal opera and the royal theater are both said to be in discussion to drop "royal" prefix from their name:

Earlier this year, Rufus Norris suggested the National Theatre had deliberated eschewed the “Royal” from its title for fear of putting new audiences off.
“This country is still very class divided and anything that adds to that perception, that this place is not open to everybody, could be a downfall,” he said. “I fear that for some people that [the ‘Royal’ prefix] adds to that perception.”

and a some wonderful quotes from Alex Clifton, artistic director of Storyhouse, which the Duchess of Sussex visited with the Queen during a visit to Chester in June, said yesterday that “any arts orgs would really benefit from having her on board as an advocate”.

“The Duchess provides extraordinary leverage into a massive range of communities. She’s a really powerful voice and can help any theatre achieve more of its mission, in terms of telling stories to as many and as broad a range of people as possible.”

[Dman]

A very fine article indeed, Fros! I think Meghan can help in making the arts in the UK more inclusive.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Dman

I think Meghan can help in making the arts in the UK more inclusive.

How do you think Meghan, from her position through marriage of supreme privilege and entitlement, might make the arts more inclusive in the UK?

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by muriel

How do you think Meghan, from her position through marriage of supreme privilege and entitlement, might make the arts more inclusive in the UK?

I think Alex Clifton, in that Telegraph article Fros posted above, answered this very well:

"Alex Clifton, artistic director of Storyhouse, which the Duchess of Sussex visited with the Queen during a visit to Chester in June, said yesterday*that “any arts orgs would really benefit from having her on board as an advocate”.
“As an artist and actor herself, she understands the practice and can speak with authority herself,” he said. “She’s an accessible, dynamic, modern-facing presence: it’s impossible to overstate the impact that someone with her authority can have on people’s lives.


“As an industry we speak very easily and confidently to existing audiences. The challenge is to reach new, more diverse, more traditionally marginalised communities.
“The Duchess provides extraordinary leverage into a massive range of communities. She’s a really powerful voice and can help any theatre achieve more of its mission, in terms of telling stories to as many and as broad a range of people as possible.”

[soapstar]

Posts discussing the official engagements that Meghan has done this year, have been deleted. Not only was the subject off-topic, but the discussion was brought over from a recently closed thread. When a thread is closed by a mod for review, please don't bring the discussion over to other threads.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by muriel

How do you think Meghan, from her position through marriage of supreme privilege and entitlement, might make the arts more inclusive in the UK?

Through initiatives and programs. She can champion causes that will help bring about change. It’s what the royals do. They use their privileged positions to help charitable organizations.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Fros

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...d-fears-royal/

I am not sure if this is the right thread but a great article in the telegraph about Meghan's possible future work with British theaters. How they are seen as elitist and non-inclusive and how Meghan could work with theatres to make them more inclusive.

Fascinating insight about how the royal opera and the royal theater are both said to be in discussion to drop "royal" prefix from their name:

Earlier this year, Rufus Norris suggested the National Theatre had deliberated eschewed the “Royal” from its title for fear of putting new audiences off.
“This country is still very class divided and anything that adds to that perception, that this place is not open to everybody, could be a downfall,” he said. “I fear that for some people that [the ‘Royal’ prefix] adds to that perception.”

and a some wonderful quotes from Alex Clifton, artistic director of Storyhouse, which the Duchess of Sussex visited with the Queen during a visit to Chester in June, said yesterday that “any arts orgs would really benefit from having her on board as an advocate”.

“The Duchess provides extraordinary leverage into a massive range of communities. She’s a really powerful voice and can help any theatre achieve more of its mission, in terms of telling stories to as many and as broad a range of people as possible.”

That’s a very interesting read. While I knew Meghan met with Rufus Norris, I didn’t know that National Theater actually removes Royal to appeal to a broader audience. I’ve met with a local symphony close to where I live, and I know they’ve had serious struggles with attracting a young and more diversed audience. Didn’t know that a major national theater is also struggle with it to such an extent.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Dman

Through initiatives and programs. She can champion causes that will help bring about change. It’s what the royals do. They use their privileged positions to help charitable organizations.

Could you provide a little more detail on how Meghan's involvement per se would help in the way that you are suggesting?

[Osipi]

One word jumps into my mind when I think of how Meghan, with her life experience, could draw young people towards the arts. That word is empowerment.

It doesn't mean that young people would become star struck and strive to be a movie star or a thespian but rather be encouraged to know they can do anything they set their minds to doing and its in the dramatic arts, the music training or the photography lessons and even mime lessons (I know... I know.... not many people like mimes) that is training on how to express oneself, to build confidence, gain communication skills. Its also a way to be involved in a group project working together as a team.

One can't help but realize that Meghan is a person that spent her lifetime with all its ups and downs and struggles in the performing arts and a very good example that perseverance and hard work does pay off. Who better than Meghan to be able to be the shining example? Who better than Meghan to be able to point out the pitfalls and the disappointments and encourage someone not to give up on a dream? Who better than Meghan to show young people that its all about giving back whether a comedian is rewarded with a laugh, a dramatist brings a heart warming to an audience or a painting captures the magnificence of a landscape?

So, in short, to answer Muriel's question, I would say it builds empowerment to express oneself.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Dman

It Isn’t true, folks, Meghan remains a feminist and no one is making her give that up.

I think the media forget that being a feminist is a lifestyle, not a hobby. There is an opportunity to advance the cause of women in just about every aspect of life.

I would imagine supporting art programs in schools or after school projects to offer an opportunity in the poorest or culturally different areas. Just a thought.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize the Britsih Royal Family as "patriarchal" when the head of the family actually happens to be a woman (The Queen) !


More so than being "patriarchal", what the BRF has to be above all nowadays is politically neitral, and that's where Meghan's "being silenced" is coming from IMHO. Meghan was too much of a political activist before getting married and that is obviously incompatible with her new status as a princess of the United Kingdom.

You are correct, the Queen and her family must remain neutral in all things political, it is a major part of our constitution. It is not up to Meghan to come in and whip things up or change things, if she didn't know what she was getting in to she should have done her homework better. I am actually a bit fed up of Meghan losing her voice, being silenced, if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen.

[Dman]

Feminism isn’t political.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by Gawin

.

But it's also fair to call the BRF patriarchal. The Queen is only Queen because she didn't have a brother and while Parliament has altered the rules in favor of gender neutral succession, the Queen has limited peerage titles to male members of her family. Princess Margaret didn't receive a peerage, her husband did. Princess Anne didn't receive a peerage but her younger brothers did. And in all cases the titles can only be inherited by sons, not daughters.

this is so true -