Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[Iluvbertie]

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.

Edward VIII simply said 'something must be done' about the living conditions of the miners and that was 'too political' back in the 1930s.

The royals have less leeway now given the times are less deferential and a pro-republican almost communist leader of the opposition.

Any cause with any elements of politics is not acceptable - which is why Meghan is being called out on this - too political and not acceptable for a member of the BRF, just as William was called out over his comments about birth control in Africa.

 

[Zaira]

Nothing Meghan said was political in such a way that it was biased or partisan. Saying we should listen to women is a statement of fact. Working on women's rights is something any royal should be able to take on. People snarked when Camilla started doing work with survivors of sexual assault because it was too "rough" or political for some. Same with Diana and AIDs and Charles and the environment.

It says more about those who take issue with that statement than it does about Meghan.

If the royals can't make any comments of substance than they will cease to be institution worth preserving. Nothing, and I do mean nothing is devoid of politics completely.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

Having read a few pages of varying opinions, a few articles about it, I still don't understand what part of the few sentences Meghan said was too political. I think some people have their opinion of her already made up, as in she's too opinionated, too political, too everything, and would've jumped on her comments no matter what. Empowering women is no more political than talking about men's mental health, or male suicide. Jmho of course.

 

[Dman]

Edward VIII simply said 'something must be done' about the living conditions of the miners and that was 'too political' back in the 1930s.

The royals have less leeway now given the times are less deferential and a pro-republican almost communist leader of the opposition.

Any cause with any elements of politics is not acceptable - which is why Meghan is being called out on this - too political and not acceptable for a member of the BRF, just as William was called out over his comments about birth control in Africa.

Meghan didn’t say anything political.

I’m just saying, with all the great work they’re doing through the Royal Foundation, everyone will have to get used to them tackling big issues. By the sound of it, they’re just getting started. There’s so much work to be done, and now Meghan will be adding her own causes to the Foundation.

 

[Spectator]

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.

This!!
Nothing she said was political,it wasn't like she went on and on about the movements but used them as examples.If the palace can give a quote backing her up,they obviously don't view it to be a political statement and that's all that matters.people want to complain for the sake of complaining
And what's royal speak? If it's the way some of these royals speak,then ill rather Meghan stick to how she speaks

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Has anyone suppressed your view? Deleted your comments? Told you you can't post? Have you been calling folks racist when they disagree with something Meghan says/does? If you aren't then the comments don't refer to you.

I like Meghan..I like Kate. That doesn't mean I like everything they say/do.



LaRae

Thank you! I swear too many people take disagreement and transform it into some attack on their freedom of speech.

I didn't know William had also gotten called out for being too political as well I do wonder if the younger generation can keep it together regarding this issue of remaining above the frey.

 

[Pranter]

They are going to have to figure out where that fine line is that folks will tolerate. They are not free to say whatever they want without consequences. There are things that are going to burn them if they get too carried away. Like it or not it's the way it is. The U.K. is not the U.S. and even here the land of free speech there are often consequences to things you say...however no one is going to damage a monarchy by speaking to freely here.

People have made gender issues, equality issues into political issues for decades.

This has not been done with mental health (example given above) so you are not going to have that polarizing effect, in fact people have great admiration as a general rule when you try to do something like this Heads Together etc.

You can say gender/equality are not political issues all you want but they quite simply are at least here in the U.S.



LaRae

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

People have made gender issues, equality issues into political issues for decades.

This has not been done with mental health (example given above) so you are not going to have that polarizing effect, in fact people have great admiration as a general rule when you try to do something like this Heads Together etc.

You can say gender/equality are not political issues all you want but they quite simply are at least here in the U.S.



LaRae

This right here... saying something isn't political isn't going to change the fact that it is. Not only is it political but it's controversial too boot especially in recent months. Thankfully I don't recall her making any statements about the recent hysteria in Hollywood.

 

[PetticoatLane]

The reason that any comment about so-called 'gender equality' will be controversial is that it is fundamentally a political issue. What is 'gender equality'? What does it look like? How should we go about achieving it even if we could agree on what it is? Should we have, as politicians on the left have suggested, all-female shortlists for a candidacy during a general election to increase the number of women in Parliament? Should we impose quotas in public appointments, or FTSE 100 companies or match day officials for the Premier League? Should we force male and female parents to take an equal amount of leave after the birth of their baby? Should we mandate that companies pay men and women doing the same job the same salary despite any disparity in experience, length of service, performance or qualifications? Should we outright forbid any physical contact between men and women in the workplace or anywhere else unless a contract has been made with witnesses?

No one in their right mind suggests that sexual harassment, whether it be male on female or vice versa, is acceptable. That is not in question. But the rest of this debate is very much in question. That is why the royals shouldn't become involved in it and why Kate's choice of dress at the BAFTAs was absolutely correct.

I'm sick of being accused of being anti-woman somehow for having big reservations about these Twitter movements, despite being female myself. There is a nasty element at work in this, abusing any woman who may not fit in with their exact ideology. All that does is alienate people and give those who prefer not to see any change the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing.

 

[BMC]

The reason that any comment about so-called 'gender equality' will be controversial is that it is fundamentally a political issue. What is 'gender equality'? What does it look like? How should we go about achieving it even if we could agree on what it is? Should we have, as politicians on the left have suggested, all-female shortlists for a candidacy during a general election to increase the number of women in Parliament? Should we impose quotas in public appointments, or FTSE 100 companies or match day officials for the Premier League? Should we force male and female parents to take an equal amount of leave after the birth of their baby? Should we mandate that companies pay men and women doing the same job the same salary despite any disparity in experience, length of service, performance or qualifications? Should we outright forbid any physical contact between men and women in the workplace or anywhere else unless a contract has been made with witnesses?

No one in their right mind suggests that sexual harassment, whether it be male on female or vice versa, is acceptable. That is not in question. But the rest of this debate is very much in question. That is why the royals shouldn't become involved in it and why Kate's choice of dress at the BAFTAs was absolutely correct.

I'm sick of being accused of being anti-woman somehow for having big reservations about these Twitter movements, despite being female myself. There is a nasty element at work in this, abusing any woman who may not fit in with their exact ideology. All that does is alienate people and give those who prefer not to see any change the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing.

Hear, hear! I agree with you 100%.

Also, this is not something the BRF should get or be involved with, there is too much politics involved.

 

[ACO]

This has not been done with mental health (example given above) so you are not going to have that polarizing effect, in fact people have great admiration as a general rule when you try to do something like this Heads Together etc.

You can say gender/equality are not political issues all you want but they quite simply are at least here in the U.S.

LaRae

Mental health was very polarizing not that long ago. It was taboo and frankly still is in a lot of places. It wasn't until recently that people have been comfortable talking about it properly. I applaud them for Heads Together but it is proof of how things has and should change. Diana's work with HIV/AIDs and landmines is another example. Heck, Charles fight for the environment these days can be seen that way by many.

I will never see fighting against sexual abuse and harassment which is the foundation of #MeToo as political. As for Times Up and gender equality? Also not political to me but I can see how some can see it otherwise. Still, I look forward to Meghan championing female empowerment especially in the youth. And if that is an issue for some then... oh well. I feel it is important and glad she does tool. If encouraging young women to have self worth is going to bring down the monarchy in some's eyes then maybe it should fall.

 

[loonytick]

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.

The fact that women are in all areas of the workforce means only that they got their foot in the door. Having a job doesn't equate to being free to speak your mind or assert yourself in that job without unfair ramifications. All too many still learn the hard way that the way to maintain position or continue moving on the career track as a woman is to keep head down and mouth shut about anything that could be seen as a challenge to the status quo, even in situations where male coworkers would be considered leaders or problem-solvers for speaking up.

I think the point Meghan is making is that whether or not a woman has well-formed thoughts and opinions ("a voice") is one thing, being in a position where she feels that she can share them is another. The cliche of "giving women a voice" is insulting because it insinuates that women need to have their hands held simply to formulate nuanced arguments in their own favor. What they need, she is saying, is rather a sense of security that if they can use their voice they'll receive a fair hearing. And I've certainly seen with my own eyes that plenty of women...in many lines of work and walks of life...don't feel that, despite laws and policies that are meant to ensure an equal playing ground.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

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.

''Their popularity won't save them''? Well, if it comes to that (them being told to ''shut up or leave'') and they still have what you call popularity, then it will in fact save them in a referendum.

Edward VIII simply said 'something must be done' about the living conditions of the miners and that was 'too political' back in the 1930s.

The royals have less leeway now given the times are less deferential and a pro-republican almost communist leader of the opposition.

Any cause with any elements of politics is not acceptable - which is why Meghan is being called out on this - too political and not acceptable for a member of the BRF, just as William was called out over his comments about birth control in Africa. He was also called out about the hypocrisy as he had just announced they were having their third child.

Well, much of the deference disappeared in the 1970/80s (and thank goodness for that), but the approval/favourability/positive ratings of William (from 2011-2013 and again from 2017) and Harry (from 2014) is higher than both those of the Queen Mother, Charles (when he was on top in the 1970s) and Diana's when she was on top. - Only the Queen has had higher numbers.


Some quotes from Dman:

A lot of folks will have to get used to (1) the younger generation of the royal family being more outspoken on serious issues.

What we saw on that stage today; are senior power couples of the British royal family. They are simply taking the Monarchy into the modern future. (2) It’s their job to reshape monarchy, so it can remain relevant and in touch with the people.

1. Well, I don't think they've been that outspoken, and they would be wise to not be it in the future.

2. No, it's not their job to reshape an already modern monarchy. Their job is to remain apolitical and unifying.

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.

Well, several member of the royal family have taken on serious and important issues for years already, not only the ''fluffy and cute'' stuff.

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!

Well, you can't compare other royal family members with the Queen. - Why? Because she is an apolitical constitutional monarch (a completely different role).
And neither Charles or William can do what they does today after their succession to the throne.

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.

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.

Well, looking nice and unveiling plaques is an important part of the royal calendar for both women and men, and believe me, the Cambridges and Sussexes (if that's the dukedom Harry gets) will be doing much of it.

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.

Well, the Queen is a pretty modern monarch (being praised for it in the media all the time) who has changed with times, so Charles and William will be wise in doing much of the same.
And again, you can't compare the role of other royal family members with that of the monarch.

 

[Zaira]

Mental health support and funding is hugely political in the US and UK. What is and is not appriopriate care? Medication use; social services; cuts in health funding and spending. Mental health isn't just a medical issue, it is social with many issues arising from social issues like trauma or poverty. Most of the homeless in the US/UK are folks who did not receive adequate mental health care, so it has implications for that. Harry has spoken forcefully about the lack of support and funding for vets. How is that not political?

This notion that the royals need to be totally neutral on issues IMO wrong. Why pay for people who do nothing more than open hospitals or wear nice dresses? If the royals cannot speak to the issues impacting their citizens in a meaningful way they should not be an institution that is preserved. No one is served by such neutrality or silence.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

The reason that any comment about so-called 'gender equality' will be controversial is that it is fundamentally a political issue. What is 'gender equality'? What does it look like? How should we go about achieving it even if we could agree on what it is? Should we have, as politicians on the left have suggested, all-female shortlists for a candidacy during a general election to increase the number of women in Parliament? Should we impose quotas in public appointments, or FTSE 100 companies or match day officials for the Premier League? Should we force male and female parents to take an equal amount of leave after the birth of their baby? Should we mandate that companies pay men and women doing the same job the same salary despite any disparity in experience, length of service, performance or qualifications? Should we outright forbid any physical contact between men and women in the workplace or anywhere else unless a contract has been made with witnesses?

No one in their right mind suggests that sexual harassment, whether it be male on female or vice versa, is acceptable. That is not in question. But the rest of this debate is very much in question. That is why the royals shouldn't become involved in it and why Kate's choice of dress at the BAFTAs was absolutely correct.

I'm sick of being accused of being anti-woman somehow for having big reservations about these Twitter movements, despite being female myself. There is a nasty element at work in this, abusing any woman who may not fit in with their exact ideology. All that does is alienate people and give those who prefer not to see any change the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing.

Meghan has not even indicated, that while she's wanting to work on women's issues, she will tackle take on charities, that cover any of aforementioned areas. Which is why I'm baffled, that a quick mention of 'empowering and encouraging women to use their voice' is straight up called too political. She very clearly said, that she can't say anything about the charities she will be working with, only talked about her past work. It's the mention of 'helping women use their voice' that has people already up in arms.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This notion that the royals need to be totally neutral on issues IMO wrong. Why pay for people who do nothing more than open hospitals or wear nice dresses? If the royals cannot speak to the issues impacting their citizens in a meaningful way they should not be an institution that is preserved. No one is served by such neutrality or silence.

The job of the BRF is to unify the country not to divide it. That is the job of politicians and they do that with political matters.

If the BRF are going to go into politics then their very reason for existing ends - as they can't unify a country when they are involved in political matters which by their very nature divide the country.

Elected officials speak to issues impacting the citizens not non-elected people.

 

[MARG]

I understand why so many people would see "Empowering Woman" as a political issue. You just have to type BBC pay gender and you will see that the BBC got caught out underpaying women doing equal work with equal qualifications, seniority and experience. That is illegal, immoral and a smack in the face for the government since the BBC is a state-owned and run entity facing 297 equal pay claims and counting.

It is Now. It is Hot. It will get hotter because you can bet it is not the only state-owned entity with dodgy pay structures and then, of course, there is the private sector. In short, it is very "political" and is going to get very messy.

I am, however, sure that the Foundation researches very well before they involve themselves in any area if for no other reason that they know the future of the Foundation itself is at stake.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

^
Meghan didn't speak about gender pay gap issues though. She didn't mention it at all.

Women's issues aren't any more political than men's issues. William is helping men speak up, but Meghan wanting to help women get their voices heard is too political?

 

[Juliette2]

She wants to "hit the ground running" (except she doesn't know toward what apparently...) and it looks like she is is going to make women’s rights her mission. Myybe I'm wrong, we'll just have to wait, apparently very little, and see!

 

[Madame Verseau]

I think Meghan will find a balance in speaking to important causes without looking political.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

She wants to "hit the ground running" (except she doesn't know toward what apparently...)

I think Meghan and the Family know exactly what she wants to take on--but nothing official will be announced until after the wedding. Just because we don't know anything yet does not mean it is not already moving forward.

 

[soapstar]

Posts discussing Meghan's past political comments have been deleted, as have other off-topic posts. This thread is not about William, Kate, Camilla or any other royal and their charities. Nor is it about politics, the MeToo movement or the BAFTA's. It's for discussing the duties, responsiblities and roles that Meghan will have in the future.

Also, the discussion about which causes are political is going in circles, so let's please move on from it.

Please stay on-topic. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

[burbankstorylady]

I wonder if a visit to Lesotho is in the works, to meet Prince Seeiso and tour the Mamo'hato Centre and other works relating to Sentebale -- though of course it will be the second public meeting with Prince Seeiso because of course he will be at the wedding.

 

[Osipi]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it came out that Harry and Meghan both visited Sentebale together during their courtship and it just was never made public knowledge.

With Harry's profound involvement in Sentebale and Meghan's previous work in Rwanda, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a major "me too" moment for the both of them when getting to know each other.

 

[Dman]

I can’t wait to see the patronages Meghan will take on as a senior member of the Royal Family. I’m sure some things will be passed down to her from The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh as well.

 

[jacqui24]

I'm excited to see which causes he and Meghan take on from this point. Ms. Gordon stated that she spoke with Meghan during the engagement and had discussed what Meghan has been working on behind scenes. There is apparently a big project coming our way.

 

[Rudolph]

You’d think she’d announce some patronages before any ‘big projects’. She doesn’t even have any staff. First thing to do is probably hire a full time private secretary.

 

[ACO]

I'm excited to see which causes he and Meghan take on from this point. Ms. Gordon stated that she spoke with Meghan during the engagement and had discussed what Meghan has been working on behind scenes. There is apparently a big project coming our way.

Yes Bryony Gordon wrote how she met with Meghan privately months ago and talked shop. Meghan will unveil some special project she has been working on in a few months. Bryony seemed excited after the conversation. They also talked about Heads Together, so I am guessing it is likely in connection to that?

 

[jacqui24]

You’d think she’d announce some patronage’s before any ‘big projects’. She doesn’t even have any staff. First thing to do is probably hire a full time private secretary.

Amy Pickerill has been working with her since very early on in the engagement even though she was listed as assistant private secretary for Harry’s private office. She was sequestered from the press office when it became clear Meghan needed more help with all the arrangements. And Samantha Cohen is taking over during summer, but all reporting has been that she’ll advise both Meghan and Harry. I’m sure staff changes will happen as necessary, I wouldn’t worry about that. As for patronage’s, she’s also been taking meetings with various charity representatives and working behind the scene during engagement. There is no reason why she can’t support charities and have other projects. Sometimes they are actually more powerful together.

As Meghan said, she can multitask. It’s a good skill to have.

And can someone explain to me what exactly do patrons do?

 

[Rudolph]

Samantha Cohen is filling in for both of them during the summer. But Meghan will need her own private secretary plus I’d imagine an assistant private secretary.

I maybe wrong but I thought a reporter said they’re be no announcements for at least 6 months. I’ll have to look who said it.

The royals basically shutdown for the summer. The Queen goes to Balmoral and that’s usually it.

Interviewing people for private secretary, planning for the visit to Australia and NZ, announcing a ‘big project’ in addition to patronages is a pretty ambitious schedule for the short term.