Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[Rudolph]

The causes William, Catherine and Harry focus on now impact women just as much as men.

Drug addiction, homelessness, mental health to name a few. I think Meghan being a ‘voice’ for women is kind of insulting to the work other members of the royal family already do.

 

[Pranter]

There is nothing political about 'feminist' causes. Nor do you have to put a 'feminist' spin on women's causes. Feminist has a completely negative connotation for so many people.

Camilla works hard promoting charities protecting women against domestic violence. Is that political?? Eugenie is involved in modern slavery causes. I don't see why Meghan cant continue to fight for women's health and rights.

IMO that is the fault of the attention the rabid feminists get. They tend to tar everyone with their brush so to speak.

It's not the fault of the average person when they shut down after hearing someone identify as a feminist.

I don't think Meghan will have an issue with it at all, she has never come across (based on the interviews I've seen with her discussion the issues and even feminism) as someone trying to lead a crusade in a aggressive or political manner.


LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

The causes William, Catherine and Harry focus on now impact women just as much as men.

Drug addiction, homelessness, mental health to name a few. I think Meghan being a ‘voice’ for women is kind of insulting to the work other members of the royal family already do.

I don't get how it is insulting

While yes, the issue of mental health affects all walks of society, Harry and the Cambridges have all taken a different approach to mental health. Harry focusses on soldiers and the impact mental health has on them. William focusses on bereavement. Kate's focus is a little less clear, seems to be mainly children. For Meghan to focus on women's mental health would be her angle in joining the work that the trio already does. It would only add to their work, not take away from it.

No one suggested Meghan was the ONLY voice for women. Simply that she could be a voice for women. There are many causes that affect women in society, and room enough for more then one royal woman to speak on.

IMO that is the fault of the attention the rabid feminists get. They tend to tar everyone with their brush so to speak.

It's not the fault of the average person when they shut down after hearing someone identify as a feminist.

I don't think Meghan will have an issue with it at all, she has never come across (based on the interviews I've seen with her discussion the issues and even feminism) as someone trying to lead a crusade in a aggressive or political manner.

For no other reason then what you say right now, I hope Meghan declares herself a feminist, AGAIN.

This sick need for anyone, especially other women to paint feminists as RABID is embarrassing. Women who want equal rights to men but who cant be bothered to speak up for themselves. Painting other women as man haters. Feminists do not want special rights, they don't hate men, they want equal rights. Maybe if other women stopped attacking feminists, while enjoying the freedoms those feminists earned them, maybe we wouldn't be tarred and feathered constantly.

Its great men like Justin Trudeau have stepped up and shown feminism is not an evil world. Nor is it something only women are.

Of course anytime a woman doesn't sit demurely and quietly, and ask for a petition over tea, she is rabid.

'Well-behaved women rarely make history'.

 

[jacqui24]

The causes William, Catherine and Harry focus on now impact women just as much as men.

Drug addiction, homelessness, mental health to name a few. I think Meghan being a ‘voice’ for women is kind of insulting to the work other members of the royal family already do.

How is encouraging girls to reach for the stars and expecting the same treatment as their brothers insulting to other members of the royal family? Or working with young girls on self esteem issues? I don’t think that’s an issue that’s been address very clearly by the royal foundation as of right now. And it’s not a dig or criticism at them because one foundation can’t do everything and they’ve picked their own issues. So now we can have someone else that can address something that’s not being addressed, everybody should be happy about that.

 

[Pranter]

I don't get how it is insulting

While yes, the issue of mental health affects all walks of society, Harry and the Cambridges have all taken a different approach to mental health. Harry focusses on soldiers and the impact mental health has on them. William focusses on bereavement. Kate's focus is a little less clear, seems to be mainly children. For Meghan to focus on women's mental health would be her angle in joining the work that the trio already does. It would only add to their work, not take away from it.

No one suggested Meghan was the ONLY voice for women. Simply that she could be a voice for women. There are many causes that affect women in society, and room enough for more then one royal woman to speak on.



For no other reason then what you say right now, I hope Meghan declares herself a feminist, AGAIN.

This sick need for anyone, especially other women to paint feminists as RABID is embarrassing. Women who want equal rights to men but who cant be bothered to speak up for themselves. Painting other women as man haters. Feminists do not want special rights, they don't hate men, they want equal rights. Maybe if other women stopped attacking feminists, while enjoying the freedoms those feminists earned them, maybe we wouldn't be tarred and feathered constantly.

Its great men like Justin Trudeau have stepped up and shown feminism is not an evil world. Nor is it something only women are.

Of course anytime a woman doesn't sit demurely and quietly, and ask for a petition over tea, she is rabid.

'Well-behaved women rarely make history'.

You can ignore the reality of how these women act (rabid feminists) if you like but that doesn't change the fact that they do exist and we've all seen them or been victims of their commentary. There's no need to paint them as anything...their actions speak for themselves.

Your idea of women behaving badly must vary greatly from mine, if you condone their behavior.

Beyond this it's evident that Meghan is not of the rabid feminist type and this is a good thing.


LaRae

 

[AdmirerUS]

Off topic, but related to the things I have read that Meghan has said that relate to women's right's...

I'm for women's rights - have been lo these many years. And everything I have worked for had/has a benefit for men, children and other women. Because we succeed with one another, rather than on the backs of one another. This seems true of all of what I have read she cares about.

And I think the BRF has been pro men, women, children in this way as well.

JMO.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Honestly I don't think she's going to do anything too political. You can get involved with causes that help women without approaching it from the political angle. She can roll up her sleeves and expose the need for women to have access to sanitary health without lecturing and pounding the pulpit.

IIRC Camilla is involved with some 'women's issues and manages it without causing controversy.


LaRae

She can get involved with some issues, like the well in that one country she went to. But I think she will have to stay away from the word feminist which she has used in the past. Domestic violence is a neutral cause though some people di say violence against men needs to be talked about more.
I may be mistaken but I recall Meghan saying in a speech she was proud to be a feminist and I assume statements like that won't sit well with the firm, it's too political and controversial. She may have to say statements like she supports equality for women or for everyone.

 

[tommy100]

I think if she worked for a UN body and talked about women's rights it might give her more cover over any political flack.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Didn't Meghan once work for the UN in some sort of ambassadorial role? She could take up something like that, advocating equal rights / women's rights etc

That would be a 'no-no'. She can't do anything that suggests political involvement unless she wants to cause a constitutional crisis in Britain.

Encouraging girls to strive to be the best they can be is one thing but to talk about equality and women's rights (which already largely exist in the UK) takes her into an arena she will have to learn to avoid.

That will be the hardest thing for her in many ways - learning that she can't say what she wants, when she wants on any issue she wants. She will be told by the government what to say and have her speeches approved etc. She is marrying into a family with fewer freedoms than the rest of the British population - the price they pay for their luxurious lifestyle is a total lack of freedom of speech and movement. Even a quick trip down to the shops will need to be 'pre-approved' by the security people. She is really giving up her freedom.

 

[cepe]

Equality rights in the Uk are enshrined in law. Have been for many years. The legislation is in place.

So she doesn't need to change anything about the law, only attitude. And that is with businesses, universities, political establishments, the press and the public.

Minefield - requires softly softly approach. Show by example.

And she definitely cannot condemn anything that happens in other countries directly. Again its soft, diplomatic approach.

She is more than capable of doing it - she just needs to understand what is required/how it is to be handled by the British Government. And stick with it.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

That would be a 'no-no'. She can't do anything that suggests political involvement unless she wants to cause a constitutional crisis in Britain.

Encouraging girls to strive to be the best they can be is one thing but to talk about equality and women's rights (which already largely exist in the UK) takes her into an arena she will have to learn to avoid.

May I ask why talking about equality and women's rights is off limits? I just thought she needed to steer clear of the term feminist not necessarily steer clear of "women's rights"

 

[Iluvbertie]

Any form of 'rights' is a political matter and she can't get involved in anything political at all.

 

[jacqui24]

She could simply offer a forum to encourage women to take on leadership roles. A lot of it isn’t because women can’t by law, we can, but it’s the mindset of both the women and society overall, such as studies have shown that women are promoted based on what they’re already doing, but men is promoted by their potential. Or encouraging women to have the confidence to be more assertive. Opening a dialogue about that type of soft issues that laws can’t address is vital to improve this issue.

 

[Dani257]

What makes something political? If she's not speaking about laws or national policies, why should something be considered political?

And do we know that the word "feminism" is considered political term by the "firm"? I mean, if it is, she'll have to stay away from it. But, do we know that? I very strongly disagree that there's anything inherently political about the term. Obviously, you can approach it from a political angle, but if you're making sure girls have access to education by making sure they have sanitary products, that's not political, but it is feminist. So, why should the word itself be a boogeyman word?

I mean, there are rules and she'll follow them regardless of what I say. But, I just don't see the point in not being able to say the "f" word in her public comments, when there's nothing inherently political about the word itself.

 

[Rudolph]

I think the reason Meghan is starting over with charitable interests is the Firm wants her to learn its way of doing things.

British royals have a lot of constraints put on them that Hollywood types don’t have to worry about.

It’s one thing to post Instagram videos complaining about the state of world when you’re a celebrity. It’s a whole new way doing things when you’re a royal.

 

[Leopoldine]

She might have supported causes or charities that overlap or even may be in conflict with current BRF interests. It may not be all of her charities, but even if it is one or two that's enough to clean the slate and start anew.

I never looked up her charities and interests, so I cannot speak of particulars, but I do think that if she was involved with, say, 12 organizations and BP or KP or CH had issues, conflicts or duplication with even 2 of them, it would be better to clear the deck than to bring unwanted focus to issues that might be construed as court rivalry.

 

[jacqui24]

I think the reason Meghan is starting over with charitable interests is the Firm wants her to learn its way of doing things.

British royals have a lot of constraints put on them that Hollywood types don’t have to worry about.

It’s one thing to post Instagram videos complaining about the state of world when you’re a celebrity. It’s a whole new way doing things when you’re a royal.

Yea, Meghan didn’t just post Instagram videos complaining about state of the world. In fact, they provided solutions and encouraged other to follow suit. IG is just one way to spread the word. She also had commercial for UN Women, and official promotional videos for the organizations much like members of the royal family has done.

She might have supported causes or charities that overlap or even may be in conflict with current BRF interests. It may not be all of her charities, but even if it is one or two that's enough to clean the slate and start anew.

I never looked up her charities and interests, so I cannot speak of particulars, but I do think that if she was involved with, say, 12 organizations and BP or KP or CH had issues, conflicts or duplication with even 2 of them, it would be better to clear the deck than to bring unwanted focus to issues that might be construed as court rivalry.

It’s not so much as conflicting with others or duplication. Two major issues here. One was that most of the charities she was involved with were outside of UK. Two was that some of it can be seen as political even if it’s not for one side or other. For example, her specific role with UN Women is to encourage women’s political participation specifically.

 

[Leopoldine]

It’s not so much as conflicting with others or duplication. Two major issues here. One was that most of the charities she was involved with were outside of UK. Two was that some of it can be seen as political even if it’s not for one side or other. For example, her specific role with UN Women is to encourage women’s political participation specifically.

Serves me right for not researching Meghan's charitable interests!

Thank you, Jacqui.

 

[jacqui24]

Serves me right for not researching Meghan's charitable interests!

Thank you, Jacqui.

No problem.

 

[Alliec76]

I guess for me it doesn't really matter if Meghan never says the word "feminist" again, because she's already on the record as saying she is one. Proudly. So even if she never says so again, does anyone actually believe that means she no longer holds those views? When it comes to issues on women and equality, where she stands and what she believes is pretty much already out there. She won't be able to speak that freely going forward, but unless the BRF plan to have her come out and denounce everything she's ever said or believed in the past, (which they won't) her views are already out there. I think she will just work within the constraints she has, while still shining a light on what she cares about. She can still have a voice, just in a different way.

 

[loonytick]

Equality rights in the Uk are enshrined in law. Have been for many years. The legislation is in place.

So she doesn't need to change anything about the law, only attitude. And that is with businesses, universities, political establishments, the press and the public.

So much of what constitutional royals do really falls into the category of highlighting the work done to help people take advantage of the rights and protections allowed to them under the law. Surely doing exactly that with a focus on women, even while using the label "feminist" is not really all that groundbreaking. I mean, some fuddy-duddy busybodies will always tut-tut, but there's not much that any royal woman can do about that shy of lock herself up in a room and polish tiaras all day.

 

[Rudolph]

We’ve seen so many times the ‘sisterhood’ only supports women with the ‘correct’ views of world. Deviate from from the hymn sheet and you’re out of luck

Of course feminism is political and I see nothing to be gained for Meghan to campaign as a feminist while she’s a royal.

 

[Ish]

Equality rights in the Uk are enshrined in law. Have been for many years. The legislation is in place.



So she doesn't need to change anything about the law, only attitude. And that is with businesses, universities, political establishments, the press and the public.



Minefield - requires softly softly approach. Show by example.



And she definitely cannot condemn anything that happens in other countries directly. Again its soft, diplomatic approach.



She is more than capable of doing it - she just needs to understand what is required/how it is to be handled by the British Government. And stick with it.

Well put, Cepe.

I for one hope she continues to vocally identify herself as a feminist, and that Harry (and perhaps even other members of the BRF) follow suit. There is a conception of feminists as being “rabid”, “militant”, “man hating”, etc, and I think the best way to counter that is by people like Meghan (and Emma Watson, Justin Trudeau, etc) to vocally identify themselves as feminists. Doing so is a great way to help change people’s perception of what a feminist is - it’s easy to associate the word with negative connotations when no one wants to call themselves such, or when the only people who call themselves feminists are ones who are publicly disdained.

I also think that she can be involved with feminist issues that aren’t political. She can’t campaign for equal rights (be they in the UK or elsewhere in the world) as that’s political. But getting on board with issues like domestic or sexual abuse, or girls’ access to schools in the third world, or even something like getting involved with Women in STEM or the WISE campaign are ways that Meghan can continue to be involved in feminist issues without necessarily being political.

 

[Rudolph]

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

If Meghan wants to support women’s rights, that’s great. The rights of all women though, not just the ones who ‘identify’ as feminists.

 

[Somebody]

It’s not so much as conflicting with others or duplication. Two major issues here. One was that most of the charit8ies she was involved with were outside of UK. Two was that some of it can be seen as political even if it’s not for one side or other. For example, her specific role with UN Women is to encourage women’s political participation specifically.

Why would it be a political (dividing) issue from a British perspective if she is encouraging half of the population worldwide to become politically active if they desire to do so and want to contribute to make a change for the better? Would it be less divisive if she would encourage men to be politically active (still lots of groups among men are also underrepresented?

I personally don't see how encouraging political participation in general would be 'too political' as I would hope all parties would support this point of view.

That's not to say that this is a topic that she will focus on in her new role as this moght not be the most pressing issue in Britain compared to many other countries in the world but I hope and expect the two of them to keep an eye out for issues that are relevant within other realms of the Commonwealth as well - at least over time. For the first few years, the focus is most likely on getting to know and playing a role in the UK.

 

[Pranter]

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

If Meghan wants to support women’s rights, that’s great. The rights of all women though, not just the ones who ‘identify’ as feminists.

EXACTLY.



LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

Why would it be a political (dividing) issue from a British perspective if she is encouraging half of the population worldwide to become politically active if they desire to do so and want to contribute to make a change for the better? Would it be less divisive if she would encourage men to be politically active (still lots of groups among men are also underrepresented?

I personally don't see how encouraging political participation in general would be 'too political' as I would hope all parties would support this point of view.

That's not to say that this is a topic that she will focus on in her new role as this moght not be the most pressing issue in Britain compared to many other countries in the world but I hope and expect the two of them to keep an eye out for issues that are relevant within other realms of the Commonwealth as well - at least over time. For the first few years, the focus is most likely on getting to know and playing a role in the UK.

Political issue doesn't mean divisive. You and I might not see it as political because it's bipartisan, but nevertheless, that's entering uncomfortable territory for a lot of people in terms of royals getting involved. I do think they are aware of the other realms of commonwealth as she specifically mentioned that as part of something she can get involved with in the engagement interview.

We’ve seen so many times the ‘sisterhood’ only supports women with the ‘correct’ views of world. Deviate from from the hymn sheet and you’re out of luck

Of course feminism is political and I see nothing to be gained for Meghan to campaign as a feminist while she’s a royal.

And there is no indication of her being that type of feminist. She's been a feminist long before she met Prince Harry. There is a long history of her talking about her views as a feminist and campaigning on those issues, there is no reason to believe her view and attitude about it will change at this point.

The fact of the matter is millions of women tune out at the mention of the word feminism. They’re plenty of the them in my family.

Honestly, there will always be people tuning out at an issue for various reasons. If they choose to, then that's their choice. I don't see how that has an effect on her advocacy work. Some will listen, some won't.

 

[Somebody]

Political issue doesn't mean divisive. You and I might not see it as political because it's bipartisan, but nevertheless, that's entering uncomfortable territory for a lot of people in terms of royals getting involved.

I don't think it should be the first issue that she should dive into but down the line maybe... With almost any issue (mental health isn't without controversy either - and could be considered quite political; at least in the States) some people might have issues. Raising awareness most of the times will be uncomfortable for some, so I wouldn't like the BRF to exclude an important topic like this completely just because of that, but it wouldn't be smart to make that her main issue when she is just joining the firm.

I do think they are aware of the other realms of commonwealth as she specifically mentioned that as part of something she can get involved with in the engagement interview.

Indeed, that's why I said I expected them to take the Commonwealth seriously as that was specifically mentioned in the engagement interview; and the most pressing women's issues in Britain might differ from women's issues in other Commonwealth realms. So, lots of opportunities for Meghan within only the 'women's issues' theme and I'm sure that won't be her only focus.

 

[Dani257]

People have a strange idea of feminism. If she takes up the cause of domestic violence, that's feminism. Including making sure male victims have support. Right now, she might solely focus on issues in the UK. But, if she eventually re-branches out into supporting girls having access to sanitary products so they can get an education, that is also feminism. And neither of those things is political. Or requires you to agree with certain views beyond what I hope is the non controversial view that human beings should be helped and supported.

No, she doesn't necessarily need to use the word feminist or identify herself as one. But, if she's supporting causes that people agree are good and necessary, are they suddenly going to view those causes differently if she dares to use the word feminist in conjunction with them?

It would be a crying shame if people let the loudest voices twist something like feminism into something bad. We don't know if Meghan will ever use the word feminist again (I'm in the camp that she should). But, if she's allowed to, and she does, how about we look at what causes she's involved in and decide what that word means to her and who she's decided to support and figure out how she defines the word. Instead of jumping to conclusions that if she uses the word, we know everything about how she feels. Remember, feminists aren't a monolith. Just because the loudest and the biggest attention getters feel a certain way, doesn't mean we all approach it that way.

And my initial reason for hoping she uses the word again is that I think it's beyond silly not to (it's not inherently political, so there's really no constraint against it). But, now, I hope she does so that certain issues become associated with feminism. If you look up Prince Harry and feminism, there's a lot of articles about a speech he gave about how men need to also speak up for women. No, I don't think he used the F word, but make no mistake, it was a feminist speech. So maybe if people use the word when talking about domestic violence or education for girls or postpartum depression or anything like that, people would see that feminism isn't a bad thing. Just in how you use the term.

 

[Alliec76]

People have a strange idea of feminism. If she takes up the cause of domestic violence, that's feminism. Including making sure male victims have support. Right now, she might solely focus on issues in the UK. But, if she eventually re-branches out into supporting girls having access to sanitary products so they can get an education, that is also feminism. And neither of those things is political. Or requires you to agree with certain views beyond what I hope is the non controversial view that human beings should be helped and supported.

No, she doesn't necessarily need to use the word feminist or identify herself as one. But, if she's supporting causes that people agree are good and necessary, are they suddenly going to view those causes differently if she dares to use the word feminist in conjunction with them?

It would be a crying shame if people let the loudest voices twist something like feminism into something bad. We don't know if Meghan will ever use the word feminist again (I'm in the camp that she should). But, if she's allowed to, and she does, how about we look at what causes she's involved in and decide what that word means to her and who she's decided to support and figure out how she defines the word. Instead of jumping to conclusions that if she uses the word, we know everything about how she feels. Remember, feminists aren't a monolith. Just because the loudest and the biggest attention getters feel a certain way, doesn't mean we all approach it that way.

And my initial reason for hoping she uses the word again is that I think it's beyond silly not to (it's not inherently political, so there's really no constraint against it). But, now, I hope she does so that certain issues become associated with feminism. If you look up Prince Harry and feminism, there's a lot of articles about a speech he gave about how men need to also speak up for women. No, I don't think he used the F word, but make no mistake, it was a feminist speech. So maybe if people use the word when talking about domestic violence or education for girls or postpartum depression or anything like that, people would see that feminism isn't a bad thing. Just in how you use the term.

All good points. Look Meghan has already said she's a feminist, repeatedly. And through her work and actions we've seen how she views feminism. She seems view it as very inclusive. I too hope she's not scared off from using the word in the future, but if for some reason she doesn't, I think it will be ok, because we already know. Unless she's about to come out and denounce everything she's ever said or did pre-Harry, her views are out there.