Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[Pranter]

As a female who is the supervisor and works alongside many men... I can see your point but can't really agree. I have to work extra hard to be heard on a daily basis despite my status. In fact many think I am in the position I am in because I am a woman and they had to meet some absorb quota. They think I can't hear them but I hear every word. So yes it is important for women to stand up for themselves and speak up.

I don't think what I said had anything to do with meaning women shouldn't speak up or stand up for themselves.

The fact that women are in all areas of the workforce indicates they are being heard and are standing up.

You have to work extra hard...and? Lots of folks have to work extra hard to prove themselves. Even in all women work environments. This is not a gender issue. You see it in all male/majority male work settings as well.




LaRae

 

[Terri Terri]

Yes, ANY future member of the family should know his/her place! Meghan is no exception to that rule. She is not yet a member of the family.

William and Catherine will always be above Harry and her in the order of precedence. They will once be their king and queen.

Furthermore, it would be hard to argue that someone who is new to the UK suddenly should tell those who have been preparing all their lives for their roles in the royal family and Britain what to do/focus on just because she fell in love with one of them; or tell the British public that they've seen things wrongly and need to amend their ways - she may have a point but there are other more effective ways (in the long run) to promote that message.

With time her role will grow as she learns from the more experienced members of the family; in that way she can become a valuable member of the family with her own characteristics and all she brings to the table - while they also learn from her perspective.

What does knowing her place and W&K future as King and Queen have to do with anything? When did Meghan ever tell any member of the royal family and the British public that they have seen things wrongly and need to amend their ways? Where is that coming from?

Meghan's comments came from her work as a supporter of women's rights and representinbg the UN which the UK is a part of.

And are you saying that with Meghan's background as an established humanitarian well before she met Harry, that they also cannot learn from her knowledge and experience? Or is it only to be one way where she needs to keep her mouth shut and just do what they tell her without having an opinion?

 

[Royal Suitor]

From the article..."Wow. I’m all for women being empowered and using their voices and people (ie men) ‘hearing’ them. But this was risky on a couple of fronts. Over here, we secretly don’t like women who speak out too loudly and often (I should know), let alone women who order other women to speak out and men to listen.
Actually, that’s true over in America too (remember what happened to Hillary).

And as a nation, we certainly prefer Royal women who don’t really speak, like the Queen, or the Duchess of Cambridge, as demonstrated by that No 1 hit about a perfect girlfriend with the lyric ‘you say it best when you say nothing at all’."

If I read this right, it sounds like the author believes the country is supportive of the concept of women being empowered but not so much the real-word embodiment. Basically, use your voice if you must, but do it quietly and modestly. And we'd actually prefer if you didn't say much at all. Kate seems to catch quite a bit of flack, as she does in the article, for being nearly mute in her role, but is also held up as the archetype. All this makes me question whether the underlying issue with expressing a POV on an apolitical topic is:

A) Meghan because she hasn't been there long enough and isn't married yet
B) In-laws because they're not blood royals so should just feel lucky to be taxpayer funded
C) Royal women because...I don't even know but the author threw the Queen in so I wonder if HM/Anne would be criticized for the same statement
D) All royals
E) British women in general

Based on the article, it sounds like E to me but I'm curious what others think.

 

[Terri Terri]

Theodore Roosevelt — ‘People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care ...

As ably represented by Meghan from the time she was 11 speaking out against gender bias...feeding the homeless on skid row in LA as a teenager....travelling to Rawanda working on a clean water campaign....travelling to India and looking at menstrual health....speaking at the UN for women's rights.....working with young people to be future leaders as part of the World Vision forum...

Evidence of how Meghan has always cared is public knowledge for all to see....she didn't have to wait to be a member of the British Royal Family to be taught about humanitarism OR caring about others.

 

[Pranter]

I think the author is jumping the gun a bit on the negative side of things. A woman can be empowered and support women without going to the extremes we often see at various public events (Meghan has never behaved this way). It is possible to be a feminist without getting all up into someone's face about it.

Plenty of examples around.




LaRae

 

[ACO]

I don't think what I said had anything to do with meaning women shouldn't speak up or stand up for themselves.

The fact that women are in all areas of the workforce indicates they are being heard and are standing up.

You have to work extra hard...and? Lots of folks have to work extra hard to prove themselves. Even in all women work environments. This is not a gender issue. You see it in all male/majority male work settings as well.




LaRae

I shouldn't have to be treated as less than because of my sex which I am often. My hardwork has nothing to do with that nor the point which was clearly missed.

I'll just agree to disagree on this subject because we clearly see things very differently.

 

[Pranter]

If you are being treated in a negative manner due to your gender then you need to be speaking to your HR department.


LaRae

 

[ACO]

What does knowing her place and W&K future as King and Queen have to do with anything? When did Meghan ever tell any member of the royal family and the British public that they have seen things wrongly and need to amend their ways? Where is that coming from?

I wonder as well. Meghan hasn't given off this impression she doesn't "know her place" at all. And heavens know people are quick to remind her with everything breath she takes. She hasn't actually done anything yet but clearly the idea of it is bothering many. It will definitely be interesting when she become official and starts with her patronages.

 

[Terri Terri]

Exactly. Harry and Meghan has talked about working in the Commonwealth which will also include Harry's work with the youth forum. The Commonwealth also has a women's forum. On International Women's Day, they will visit a program dealing with girls and sciences. It is more than likely that Meghan will be involved in this area as the one bringing her experience into the family. All of these will connect with the royal foundation as the organization seeks to make the programs more global.

 

[wyevale]

Ms Markle will [for some years] be seen [by the public] as the 'newest member of the Board', and therefore the most junior. She will never be CEO, and so [as with anyone in a similar position] she would be well advised to take things slowly, and 'feel her way' into her new position..

 

[Terri Terri]

The only way that Meghan could take things slowly is if Harry was a part time royal. William and Harry are now seen as full time royals. Kate will soon be going on maternity leave. Which leaves Meghan who will have to go into full time royal mode even before she is married as she may be accompanying Harry when he takes on the formal role as a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador.

Let me be even more blunt.....as a biracial American woman joining the BRF, she will not be given the luxury of taking things slowly...,she has to be seen to be working as soon as possible, and she appears to be very well aware of this fact.

 

[Pranter]

Ms Markle will [for some years] be seen [by the public] as the 'newest member of the Board', and therefore the most junior. She will never be CEO, and so [as with anyone in a similar position] she would be well advised to take things slowly, and 'feel her way' into her new position..

I think perhaps Meghan wants to assure folks she is 'here to work' ..she's not just marrying Harry for a life of leisure. Perhaps that comes across as being over-eager or too forward.

She'll have to adjust, and it'll take some time. Brits need to allow her to find her footing.


LaRae

The only way that Meghan could take things slowly is if Harry was a part time royal. William and Harry are now seen as full time royals. Kate will soon be going on maternity leave. Which leaves Meghan who will have to go into full time royal mode even before she is married as she may be accompanying Harry when he takes on the formal role as a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador.

Let me be even more blunt.....as a biracial American woman joining the BRF, she will not be given the luxury of taking things slowly...,she has to be seen to be working as soon as possible, and she appears to be very well aware of this fact.

I suspect she will have an announcement within the first year of their marriage. I'm sure she will work as she can, depending on her health etc. Folks have to allow for that too.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

Sorry but I think she brings up at least one good point and that is that Meghan shouldn't get too political especially about a flashpoint topic like feminism and womens rights which some on the far left have obscured with man hating.






There were hints that the author viewed Meghan in that way and I can't say I blame her because sometimes I get that vibe from her as well but I admit I might be wrong.

Again, folks are going to have to get used to the younger royals tackling tougher topics. Those days of when the royals took on fluffy and cute issues are done.

It’s up to the Cambridge’s and Harry and Meghan to take the monarchy into the future and to remain relevant. Everything Meghan said on that stage was relevant and non political.

 

[Royal Suitor]

Let me be even more blunt.....as a biracial American woman joining the BRF, she will not be given the luxury of taking things slowly...,she has to be seen to be working as soon as possible, and she appears to be very well aware of this fact.

Yep! Throw in the perception that she's an actress just in it for the celebrity and I think you've covered all the bases.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Again, folks are going to have to get used to the younger royals tackling tougher topics. Those days of when the royals took on fluffy and cute issues are done.

And the fall-out will be the end of the monarchy as they aren't allowed to be political at all - ever.

They will be told very quickly - shut up or leave - as happened to Edward VIII. It was his outspoken support for unpopular government policies that forced the government to remove him.

Their popularity won't save them if they continue down the path of taken on issues that the government doesn't support.

The 'fluffy and cute' issues are what restored the monarchy after 1936.

They would do well to learn the history of their own country and family.

It’s up to the Cambridge’s and Harry and Meghan to take the monarchy into the future and to remain relevant. Everything Meghan said on that stage was relevant and non political.

Everything she said was highly political.

 

[Dman]

And the fall-out will be the end of the monarchy as they aren't allowed to be political at all - ever.

They will be told very quickly - shut up or leave - as happened to Edward VIII. It was his outspoken support for unpopular government policies that forced the government to remove him.

Their popularity won't save them if they continue down the path of taken on issues that the government doesn't support.

The 'fluffy and cute' issues are what restored the monarchy after 1936.

They would do well to learn the history of their own country and family.



Everything she said was highly political.

The younger royals can’t do the exact samething The Queen and previous royals did in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and so on. It wouldn’t work in today’s world. Go back and listen to what they were talking about on that stage for their foundation. They’re talking about topics that folks didn’t talk about in the Queen’s day.

The media and royal watchers online have to allow the younger generation move the Monarchy with the times. They will risk being out of touch in they just did fluffy stuff. Thats what would bring the Monarchy down.

Let them do what they have to do!

 

[Somebody]

But isn't that exactly what Meghan pointed out. People don't have to find their voice but all they need to do is use it but just as importantly people need to LISTEN. That is what it really boils down too. People refusing to listen.

I've never said that I didn't agree with her message

I think she made an excellent point, I just doubted the way she went about it ("I fundamentally disagree with" isn't royal speak) and whether this was the right time and place (the forum wasn't about her opinions but about what the foundation has done, does and will do - and of course what the foundation will do depends partly on her interests but step one is joining and supporting existing efforts while slowly adding your own).

 

[Pranter]

......Everything she said was highly political.

I do agree with that. Like it or not those topics are also political issues. At least here in the U.S.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

What does knowing her place and W&K future as King and Queen have to do with anything? When did Meghan ever tell any member of the royal family and the British public that they have seen things wrongly and need to amend their ways? Where is that coming from?

I only contradicted your previous statements. There clearly is an order within the royal family. That doesn't mean that in private her opinion might not weigh heavily on topics that she has most experience in but as a new member your job is to join and contribute in an appropriate way; not 'make your point'.

Saying that you 'fundamentally disagree' is a clear way to tell people that they have seen things wrongly and that you know better.

Meghan's comments came from her work as a supporter of women's rights and representinbg the UN which the UK is a part of.

Which she had to give up because of her new role.

And are you saying that with Meghan's background as an established humanitarian well before she met Harry, that they also cannot learn from her knowledge and experience? Or is it only to be one way where she needs to keep her mouth shut and just do what they tell her without having an opinion?

Did you even read what I wrote? I explicitly stated that they could learn from her as well. However, as the new kid on the block she first needs to focus on transitioning in her new role and along the way I am sure the people she works with will learn a lot from her. Being a humanitarian as an independent actress is however very different from doing charity work as a member of a royal family. That includes the way you express yourself. Her experience clearly is a great asset in some ways but also a risk in others.

 

[Ronnsha]

Meghan has touched a nerve! Keep talking Meghan! It's 2018, women are not supposed to "be quiet". She's done nothing wrong, except articulate a very valid opinion. Good for her.

 

[Dman]

Another thing folks will have to get used to...strong women with experience and not afraid to use their voice and passions to make a difference in their royal positions.

We’ve come a long way from just sitting and watching royal women looking nice and unveiling plaques on any little thing.

No one is looking to be a threat to the royal institution.

Meghan has touched a nerve! Keep talking Meghan! It's 2018, women are not supposed to "be quiet". She's done nothing wrong, except articulate a very valid opinion. Good for her.

That’s the problem. Folks think that strong, experienced and passionate women are a threat to the Monarchy. They’re not! Its just that this is no longer the 1700’s.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Ugh, an article which was not completely glowing about Meghan and it took about 3 seconds for the accusations of racism and xenophobia to get thrown around. We face years of this don't we?

I share the apprehension of others at the idea of the younger royals getting more and more involved in serious controversial social issues which are by definition political issues. I watched a documentary about George VI the other day and the point was made (can't remember by whom) that the most successful royals in the UK over the last couple of centuries have been the boring ones - Victoria and Albert, George V and Mary, George Vi and QEQM, and the Queen and the DoE.

All the royals who went out to 'blaze a trail' or 'modernise the monarchy' caused massive problems despite their, one would assume, overall good intentions - Edward VIII, Margaret (to a degree), Diana, Fergie etc.

There's a lot to be said for opening hospitals, visiting county shows, visiting regiments etc. It is not the job of the royals to lecture us on how to be better people.

 

[Dman]

Ugh, an article which was not completely glowing about Meghan and it took about 3 seconds for the accusations of racism and xenophobia to get thrown around. We face years of this don't we?

I share the apprehension of others at the idea of the younger royals getting more and more involved in serious controversial social issues which are by definition political issues. I watched a documentary about George VI the other day and the point was made (can't remember by whom) that the most successful royals in the UK over the last couple of centuries have been the boring ones - Victoria and Albert, George V and Mary, George Vi and QEQM, and the Queen and the DoE.

All the royals who went out to 'blaze a trail' or 'modernise the monarchy' caused massive problems despite their, one would assume, overall good intentions - Edward VIII, Margaret (to a degree), Diana, Fergie etc.

There's a lot to be said for opening hospitals, visiting county shows, visiting regiments etc. It is not the job of the royals to lecture us on how to be better people.

All the younger royals can do, is draw on the inspiration from the older generation. It’s up to the younger royals to take the Monarchy into the future. They can’t conduct their roles in the same manner of Victoria, George V, Mary, Elizabeth II, etc. The modern world won’t allow them to do that. It would also bore the younger royals and cause problems that came about in the 90’s. Whomin their right mind would want that?

I know it’s scary for some, but the old media and royal watchers have to let go of the past and move into the present. If not, the Monarchy will fall into the dark pit of irrelevance. In today’s world, people aren’t afraid to throw out the old and build anew.

 

[Royal Suitor]

If gender equality is political couldn't the same be said for mental health or the military? These days any topic can be politicized. Calling something political has become an easy way to muzzle conversations or decide that certain groups shouldn't participate.

 

[MARG]

One more opinion about Meghan
RACHEL JOHNSON: Royal Fab Four? I fear Meghan's a bit out of tune | Daily Mail Online

Yes...another column by a white woman who thinks that the black girl from America should have kept her mouth shut and just let the white folk speak!

Amazing! It is mostly women who are the hardest on other women! Sometimes women are their own worst enemy!

Meghan is too self-assured, self-confident, intelligent and too good a public speaker for a black woman and some people can't help but pull her down!

I agree with most of what you say, however, nowhere is race an issue in the way you keep repeating the words "black woman" and "biracial woman". Now whether that was design or she had more than adequate fodder to smack both Meghan and Catherine to fill her allotted column inches without going there, but I don't see it as a valid point in this debate.

Again, folks are going to have to get used to the younger royals tackling tougher topics. Those days of when the royals took on fluffy and cute issues are done.

It’s up to the Cambridge’s and Harry and Meghan to take the monarchy into the future and to remain relevant. Everything Meghan said on that stage was relevant and non political.

I don't believe we have to look all too far into that magical future. We need to be living in the 'now' and doing in the 'now' because as long as we talk about the future per se, it might as well still be fluffy and cute issues.

Fortunately, Prince Charles has paved the way with a lifetime of hard work. With his first foray into organic vegetables, Charles realised the reporter didn't have a clue what he was talking about so he told him it meant he had to go out and talk to the veggies each night. Prince talks to Cabbages said the headlines and even the editors were too thick to see he had taken the p*** out of the lot of them! The Duchy of Cornwall laughed all the way to the bank! The same principle applied to his supposed political Spider Letters, they were not what the media and republicans thought.

Now comes the second generation. Hopefully, they will acquit themselves as well as their father has.

 

[Terri Terri]

Then we will have to agree to disagree! I stand by my opinions as much as those posters who stand by their own perspectives which are opposite to mine.?

 

[Pranter]

Ugh, an article which was not completely glowing about Meghan and it took about 3 seconds for the accusations of racism and xenophobia to get thrown around. We face years of this don't we?

I share the apprehension of others at the idea of the younger royals getting more and more involved in serious controversial social issues which are by definition political issues. I watched a documentary about George VI the other day and the point was made (can't remember by whom) that the most successful royals in the UK over the last couple of centuries have been the boring ones - Victoria and Albert, George V and Mary, George Vi and QEQM, and the Queen and the DoE.

All the royals who went out to 'blaze a trail' or 'modernise the monarchy' caused massive problems despite their, one would assume, overall good intentions - Edward VIII, Margaret (to a degree), Diana, Fergie etc.

There's a lot to be said for opening hospitals, visiting county shows, visiting regiments etc. It is not the job of the royals to lecture us on how to be better people.

Yes might as well buckle up now. For many folks it will be a knee jerk reaction to anything negative about Meghan. You couldn't possibly have a legitimate criticism you must be a closest racist (at the least).

Fortunately most people, reasonable people, aren't this way..just that segment of the population.


LaRae

 

[ACO]

my issue with that article and author has nothing to due with race. Not once was it even mentioned. Just because someone disagrees with something negative doesn't mean they are all accusing folks of being racist. How utterly ridiculous and no better than those who accuse people with different opinions of it being one.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Ugh, an article which was not completely glowing about Meghan and it took about 3 seconds for the accusations of racism and xenophobia to get thrown around. We face years of this don't we?

I share the apprehension of others at the idea of the younger royals getting more and more involved in serious controversial social issues which are by definition political issues. I watched a documentary about George VI the other day and the point was made (can't remember by whom) that the most successful royals in the UK over the last couple of centuries have been the boring ones - Victoria and Albert, George V and Mary, George Vi and QEQM, and the Queen and the DoE.

All the royals who went out to 'blaze a trail' or 'modernise the monarchy' caused massive problems despite their, one would assume, overall good intentions - Edward VIII, Margaret (to a degree), Diana, Fergie etc.

There's a lot to be said for opening hospitals, visiting county shows, visiting regiments etc. It is not the job of the royals to lecture us on how to be better people.

That is true... From the little I know England kept their monarchy for nostalgia and to remain above politics... if they can't do the later then the real politicians will say they are overstepping. And what will they do when they are asked their opinion in a controversial topic that will anger 50% of the population.

Perhaps the author suggesting Meghan know her place is regarding her place as a royal and how they are to remain neutral... not about her being a woman... IDK

 

[Dman]

Members of the royal family know that can’t dive into politics. They don’t need anyone to tell them that. They’re just tackling issues that’s effecting peoples lives without getting political. Its a dance they manage pretty well.