General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 - March 2020

[sophie25]

Meghan's background is totally about Me, Myself & I, the way Hollywood works, which was perfectly fine until she married a BRF prince. But this is not the royal way and they or whoever is advising them should shift focus or it will only get worse. The British people are not a Hollywood audience and royal duty is about the common man on the street first, or at least give the impression that it is.

Right now, they are not modernizing but celebritzing the monarchy, what will be its downfall in the very long run.

I've wondered for a long time about where the argument actually lies between the royals and the public anyway. No one is holding a gun to the royal family's head demanding that they be there. If they want privacy and find it all so awful I'm sure that no one in the country would insist that the whole thing continue. In this day and age it's all rather silly anyway to expect one single family to be shoehorned into a certain way of life without choice. I enjoy watching them like many other people but to look at a 6 year old child ie George and tell that child that he HAS to be the future head of state that is obviously unfair both to him and to other people in the country who would rather have a democratically elected one. I feel in the past the royal family didn't kick out at being who they were in the way the younger members do now. The Queen's generation and her parents, aunts and uncles accepted that they traded in certain aspects of their private lives in exchange for the enormous privilege they enjoyed. They didn't go around planting bushes and trees everywhere and hiding the name's of godparents etc because they knew that giving the public access to these things was part if what a royal family is. Now, I'm not criticising those who do these things but it has got to a point where anything the public gets to know about comes across as grudged so I would suggest that if the younger members really don't like it all that much then we should perhaps end the whole set up. They can then go on to have the lives they would prefer and all the constant drama can stop once and for all.

 

[Ista]

Meghan's background is totally about Me, Myself & I, the way Hollywood works, which was perfectly fine until she married a BRF prince. But this is not the royal way and they or whoever is advising them should shift focus or it will only get worse. The British people are not a Hollywood audience and royal duty is about the common man on the street first, or at least give the impression that it is.

Right now, they are not modernizing but celebritzing the monarchy, what will be its downfall in the very long run.

I think this is definitely a risk, and something to be concerned about in the long run. I don't agree that this has already happened, however.

I do think that the Sussex team need to get a grip on messaging and on the different social media accounts, and I also think that there needs to be serious consideration as to how each cause/initiative the Sussexes take on fits into their overall objectives. Right now we have some fumbling going on. The Vogue edition had an excellent premise--women making a difference, although we could quibble about the inclusion of people like Jane Fonda--but it's a glitzy, high end fashion magazine, so it ends up being a bit of a mixed message. It's great marketing for Vogue, but aside from that, who is the intended audience? It reads a little elitist.

Couple that with the still unconfirmed attendance at the so called summit, another elitist gathering, and we have a PR week that can best be described as messy. The intent to do good is there, but the messaging is all over the place, and if this is an example of Sara Latham's (sp?) work, I think they might want to give her a shove and hire someone who can see the big picture and stay on message. (Edited to add And then take that person's advice, as opposed to trying to cowboy this stuff on their own, which has been one of the criticisms leveled at the Sussexes, that they like to do things their own way and are a bit headstrong. Who knows if that is true, but the lack of cohesion certainly lends a bit of weight to that.

 

[Dman]

But Meghan never said that she wrote the cookbook. In fact at the launch she made it clear that it was the women of the Community Kitchens who were the driving force.

Same with the clothes line. It was made clear in the statement made afterwards what she had done, asked for a clothing line to be designed which would benefit SmartWorks.

In spite of this the story in the media was that it was Meghan's cookbook. And there are still outlets today who are promoting the idea that Meghan is starting a clothes line of her own. Twisting the facts and the narrative? I'll say!

The twisted narrative is partly what’s driving this major backlash against her. I’m not going to get into what else is driving it, but I just wish everyone would just pay attention to the good work, Meghan, is doing and to the issues and causes she’s raising awareness for.

I can’t wait for her maternity leave to be over and her official engagements starts back up. Let’s just get back to some sanity, please!

 

[Hallo girl]

I've wondered for a long time about where the argument actually lies between the royals and the public anyway. No one is holding a gun to the royal family's head demanding that they be there. If they want privacy and find it all so awful I'm sure that no one in the country would insist that the whole thing continue. In this day and age it's all rather silly anyway to expect one single family to be shoehorned into a certain way of life without choice. I enjoy watching them like many other people but to look at a 6 year old child ie George and tell that child that he HAS to be the future head of state that is obviously unfair both to him and to other people in the country who would rather have a democratically elected one. I feel in the past the royal family didn't kick out at being who they were in the way the younger members do now. The Queen's generation and her parents, aunts and uncles accepted that they traded in certain aspects of their private lives in exchange for the enormous privilege they enjoyed. They didn't go around planting bushes and trees everywhere and hiding the name's of godparents etc because they knew that giving the public access to these things was part if what a royal family is. Now, I'm not criticising those who do these things but it has got to a point where anything the public gets to know about comes across as grudged so I would suggest that if the younger members really don't like it all that much then we should perhaps end the whole set up. They can then go on to have the lives they would prefer and all the constant drama can stop once and for all.

I believe I am correct in saying that it was the late Queen Mother who said duty is the price we pay for privilege. It still stands today, it is possible to commit to duty and all that it involves and still have a reasonable private life.

You also used the word 'drama' which I put in a post a few weeks ago as every event always appears to turn into a drama. There are lots of good work and intentions but something just always seems to go wrong.
I am not going to rehash previous events but they do need to get a handle on the public face.

 

[carlota]

and yet another bath confusing messages sent out by the sussex household:

... harry advocating against climate change and meghan highlighting greta thunberg as one of her 'forces of good' yet harry arriving in the ultra exclusive google camp in a private jet, along with 100s of celebrities in private jets, to deliver a message about climate change.

... harry showcasing their concern about social media and mental health, meghan communicating she 'does not read social media' because of its effect, yet asking people who they should follow on their instagram as a 'force for good' and removing any current people they followed.

the double messaging that goes on for them is something out of this world.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I believe I am correct in saying that it was the late Queen Mother who said duty is the price we pay for privilege. It still stands today, it is possible to commit to duty and all that it involves and still have a reasonable private life.

Perfectly said, and yes, it still stands today.
They are there to serve others and not to promote themselves.
They have to do their duty to the public and in return people accept their enormous privileges such as wealth, influence, being role models etc etc
One will not go without the other.
Their duty includes to share important milestones of their private lives without the secrecy or drama that comes along with celebrities who will share as they like or don't like or gain from sharing or giving hints.
Royalty does not work that way, at least not in Britain.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I agree, the cause is terrific but it all comes over sightly patronising.
It appear Vogue got just as much if not more from this exercise than Smartworks did.

There is also an element and I do not blame Meghan for this but she is being attributed with credit for stuff she didn't actually do. For example designing a line of clothing, no she didnt, she approached the companies ....producing a cookbook, no she promoted the cookbook.
It is the appearance of self promotion that is annoying the general public and taking away from the good stuff.

Vogue is a magazine that wants to sell their issues. Of course they'll want to profit from this guest edit as well.

Meghan never said, or it has never been implied, that she wrote the cook book, or that she's designing a clothing line. She has never self promoted anything of sort. I don't get where people get this idea from, tbh.

 

[Madame Verseau]

I think the resistance is also not wanting to change the concept of what a royal woman does. A female royal, from where I sit, is expected to smile, look pretty, wear fashionable clothes (but not too expensive, but come on), give a generic speech, cut a ribbon or unveil a plaque, and not to have an opinion. That may have been fine in the queen mother's day or how the more senior royal may operate, but they represent a specific demographic who are familiar with that approach. Times have changed and so has the role of women in society. Women are more active in various facets of life and for the monarchy to stay relevant that should be reflected in the royal house. Meghan, in my opinion, is expanding the traditional roles with taking initiative and using different ways to champion her causes. She is not lobbying members of Parliament to have legislation changed or abolished; nor is she trying to influence how people should vote on local or national affairs; for that would be going into the realm of the political. I like Meghan's approach because it is getting more buzz than it would in the more traditional way, although some level of the attention is unwarranted. But criticism, when fair, comes with the territory when you step outside the box.

I found this story in the Daily Mail a little odd. It's pulling from a Tatler article

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...azine-claims-old-school-trophy-wife-dead.html

Trophy wife comment aside, it seems like an acknowledgment of change of affluent womens' role in society and what they can do.

 

[Ista]

I think the resistance is also not wanting to change the concept of what a royal woman does. A female royal, from where I sit, is expected to smile, look pretty, wear fashionable clothes (but not too expensive, but come on), give a generic speech, cut a ribbon or unveil a plaque, and not to have an opinion. That may have been fine in the queen mother's day or how the more senior royal may operate, but they represent a specific demographic who are familiar with that approach. Times have changed and so has the role of women in society. Women are more active in various facets of life and for the monarchy to stay relevant that should be reflected in the royal house. Meghan, in my opinion, is expanding the traditional roles with taking initiative and using different ways to champion her causes. She is not lobbying members of Parliament to have legislation changed or abolished; nor is she trying to influence how people should vote on local or national affairs; for that would be going into the realm of the political. I like Meghan's approach because it is getting more buzz than it would in the more traditional way, although some level of the attention is unwarranted.

I think you make some really good points, and only time will tell if the Sussex version of a reboot for the duties of the BRF's women will be a good one or not. I think the problem comes in that once you concentrate on getting "buzz," the corollary is that not all buzz is going to be positive. Diana found that out, and she's just one example. Buzz or public attention is a double-edged sword and it's impossible to completely control it. I do think the Sussex machine could do a much better job in targeting and directing that buzz than they are currently, however.

And all that begs the question over whether "buzz" is all that effective in actually stimulating changes as opposed to just getting on the cover of magazines or showing up frequently on Twitter and Instagram. I'm not sure how much effect being tagged a gazillion times has on people actually getting out and doing something, as opposed to being media warriors. There's a lot of talk and outrage, but how well does that translate to action?

 

[TLLK]

I think this is definitely a risk, and something to be concerned about in the long run. I don't agree that this has already happened, however.

I do think that the Sussex team need to get a grip on messaging and on the different social media accounts, and I also think that there needs to be serious consideration as to how each cause/initiative the Sussexes take on fits into their overall objectives. Right now we have some fumbling going on. The Vogue edition had an excellent premise--women making a difference, although we could quibble about the inclusion of people like Jane Fonda--but it's a glitzy, high end fashion magazine, so it ends up being a bit of a mixed message. It's great marketing for Vogue, but aside from that, who is the intended audience? It reads a little elitist.

Couple that with the still unconfirmed attendance at the so called summit, another elitist gathering, and we have a PR week that can best be described as messy. The intent to do good is there, but the messaging is all over the place, and if this is an example of Sara Latham's (sp?) work, I think they might want to give her a shove and hire someone who can see the big picture and stay on message. (Edited to add And then take that person's advice, as opposed to trying to cowboy this stuff on their own, which has been one of the criticisms leveled at the Sussexes, that they like to do things their own way and are a bit headstrong. Who knows if that is true, but the lack of cohesion certainly lends a bit of weight to that.

You have summed up my concerns for the Sussexes.

 

[Osipi]

I had to ask myself a question. If I had a cause or an organization that needed to be promoted and funded, what would I do? In fact, I did what many accuse the Sussexes of doing. I submitted my "cause" to well known persons. Harry and Meghan themselves. They asked us to submit causes and people working for the greater good on their Instagram account. They gave me a space to bring attention to a cause that a woman that used to post here and she's taking her world by storm working for it. Its a shot at getting the message out there to more people. I'd be over the moon if well known personages or celebrities became a voice because frankly, it does reach more people. Ordinary, everyday people like I am don't have the deep pockets or create interest in a vast amount of people like well known people do.

I am more interested in the "why" Harry and Meghan do what they do and the innovative ways they're doing it rather than finding fault with every little thing. I like the known fact that throughout her pregnancy and during her maternity leave, Meghan has been shown to be quite active and involved. It tells me that she's embracing her royal role with Harry as something she wants to do rather than something she's required to do. I don't see any self gratification or self aggrandizement at all but that's just me and my perspective.

Its all in names. Names can be used for the greater good. Names can be used to make us scratch our heads and wonder why this world is going to hell in a hand basket at a blinding speed. Names can be dropped, shortened, shouted, whispered and even used as an expletive. What's important is for the greater good is the names that are associated with it and those are the people that are giving their names to causes, issues and organizations to make us aware of them, find support for them and many of them have deep pockets that put their money where their mouth is.

I follow what The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are up to here at TRF because I admire the work they do, the causes that they back and their ability to reach people. Even with the negativity bombarded at this couple, underlying it all is the "why". That's what is important to me. There is a method to this madness and it seems that, in the end, the causes, issues and organizations end up being the real winners. ?

 

[Curryong]

I think you make some really good points, and only time will tell if the Sussex version of a reboot for the duties of the BRF's women will be a good one or not. I think the problem comes in that once you concentrate on getting "buzz," the corollary is that not all buzz is going to be positive. Diana found that out, and she's just one example. Buzz or public attention is a double-edged sword and it's impossible to completely control it. I do think the Sussex machine could do a much better job in targeting and directing that buzz than they are currently, however.

And all that begs the question over whether "buzz" is all that effective in actually stimulating changes as opposed to just getting on the cover of magazines or showing up frequently on Twitter and Instagram. I'm not sure how much effect being tagged a gazillion times has on people actually getting out and doing something, as opposed to being media warriors. There's a lot of talk and outrage, but how well does that translate to action?

I think it's been forgotten that Meghan has been in the BRF for barely 14 months. Of that, five months has been spent on maternity leave. She did not receive any patronages for several months. Isn't it a bit early to be condemning her and Harry for being all talk (or outrage) and no action.

(And she did after all perform quite a few engagements before her marriage, so we know she's willing and enthusiastic.) Surely it would be fairer to wait until Meghan has at least completed a full twelve months as a fulltime Royal before judging her performance as below what some expect of her?

 

[duchessrachel]

I've wondered for a long time about where the argument actually lies between the royals and the public anyway. No one is holding a gun to the royal family's head demanding that they be there. If they want privacy and find it all so awful I'm sure that no one in the country would insist that the whole thing continue. In this day and age it's all rather silly anyway to expect one single family to be shoehorned into a certain way of life without choice. I enjoy watching them like many other people but to look at a 6 year old child ie George and tell that child that he HAS to be the future head of state that is obviously unfair both to him and to other people in the country who would rather have a democratically elected one. I feel in the past the royal family didn't kick out at being who they were in the way the younger members do now. The Queen's generation and her parents, aunts and uncles accepted that they traded in certain aspects of their private lives in exchange for the enormous privilege they enjoyed. They didn't go around planting bushes and trees everywhere and hiding the name's of godparents etc because they knew that giving the public access to these things was part if what a royal family is. Now, I'm not criticising those who do these things but it has got to a point where anything the public gets to know about comes across as grudged so I would suggest that if the younger members really don't like it all that much then we should perhaps end the whole set up. They can then go on to have the lives they would prefer and all the constant drama can stop once and for all.

I agree with these two statements. I am an American and the existence of the Royal Family does not affect me because my taxes do not go to them. However, purely as a fan of the Royal Family, I would hate to see them go away because I love all the clothing and jewels and seeing them interact with the everyday man. I also think they bring in a lot of tourism to Great Britain which certainly helps the economy. For instance, I would love to tour Great Britain to see the castles, Big Ben, Windsor, etc, but if the Royal family ceased to exist, I could care less about going. No offense whatsoever to anyone who is British, but these landmarks would cease to be relevant to me. The royal family creates a mystique around Britain. Anyway, when Harry was interviewed by Melody Hobson two or three years ago, he had the gall to suggest that young people “have all the solutions” to fix the world’s problems more so than older people because of all their connectivity. Gee, I can’t imagine how the world has managed to survive all these years. Also, when asked by Melody Hobson about the number of charities he, William, and Kate support as compared to his Grandmother, he says that we no longer live in a world where it works to just show up once a year to an event. I say tell that to the hundreds of charities of which the Queen supports by showing up once per year. I am sure they greatly appreciate it. He says you have to be involved and passionate about your work. I agree that it is good to be passionately involved with charities and I admire Harry for his work with Invictus and he, William, and Kate for their work in mental health, but passionate involvement is not necessary for every charity. I guess all these charities that have the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and the Duchess of Cornwall as their sponsors can just kiss Royal patronage goodbye when they die if it is not one that the younger royals are "passionate" about. Associating with the everyday people and showing care about the "small things" is the bread and butter of the Royal Family. It does not always have to be something big. I really believe that that Princes Charles, Harry, and William should stay away from the climate change cause. The Royals are supposed to be politically neutral and this is a politically charged topic. There are many people who don't believe in climate change and have strong feelings about that and cite evidence for their beliefs just as those who believe in climate change do. Therefore it is a political issue. Some of the people that Meghan put on the cover of Vogue are very politically divisive people. She should have chosen everyday people in Britain and the Commonwealth since that is her and Harry's focus. The Queen is a great example to follow. For 67 years she has been a unifying force for Great Britain and the Commonwealth by gracefully doing her duty, remaining politically neutral, interacting with the everyday people and not making celebrities or politically divisive people her focus. She has involved celebrities in things and has recognized them with OBE's, but that is far different than calling them forces for change. I have never heard her complain about her privacy being invaded. However, it appears that Harry thinks her way of doing things has to change for the future. In some ways it does, but don't rewrite the whole playbook. What the Queen has done has worked for 67 years. Why does it need to be "fixed" if it has mostly worked? To me, they appear to want to shut out the everyday person but cater to celebrities. I was so excited when Harry and Meghan first started dating and I hated the criticism they received. I was thrilled when they got married. However, with what I consider their missteps I am losing interest. I consider William and Kate to be private, but they are not anything in that respect like Harry and Meghan. They seem to strike the right balance. William has made some political statements in the past, but he seems to somewhat learn from them. Harry does not appear to. Maybe he and Meghan will eventually strike the right balance, but these younger royals seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They need to make a decision what they want more.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think the climate change issue is that politically charged in most of the world. In most countries the vast majority is in agreement that climate change is taking place; they mainly differ as to what should be done.

 

[Osipi]

Climate changes *are* affecting our earth but its not solely all due to man made abuses of our planet. Its something we all need to be concerned about and just the fact that its mentioned right here in this thread, shows that the conversation is ongoing. There may be a bazillion different ways proposed to deal with climate change but the most important factor is being aware of a need to begin with.

As burps can be heard around the world instantly now, so can conversations reach more people than ever before. Awareness is so much better than ignorance about issues. We're intelligent, thinking human beings and with awareness, we then form our own opinions then we share them. That's what conversations do. ?

 

[sophie25]

I agree with these two statements. I am an American and the existence of the Royal Family does not affect me because my taxes do not go to them. However, purely as a fan of the Royal Family, I would hate to see them go away because I love all the clothing and jewels and seeing them interact with the everyday man. I also think they bring in a lot of tourism to Great Britain which certainly helps the economy. For instance, I would love to tour Great Britain to see the castles, Big Ben, Windsor, etc, but if the Royal family ceased to exist, I could care less about going. No offense whatsoever to anyone who is British, but these landmarks would cease to be relevant to me. The royal family creates a mystique around Britain. Anyway, when Harry was interviewed by Melody Hobson two or three years ago, he had the gall to suggest that young people “have all the solutions” to fix the world’s problems more so than older people because of all their connectivity. Gee, I can’t imagine how the world has managed to survive all these years. Also, when asked by Melody Hobson about the number of charities he, William, and Kate support as compared to his Grandmother, he says that we no longer live in a world where it works to just show up once a year to an event. I say tell that to the hundreds of charities of which the Queen supports by showing up once per year. I am sure they greatly appreciate it. He says you have to be involved and passionate about your work. I agree that it is good to be passionately involved with charities and I admire Harry for his work with Invictus and he, William, and Kate for their work in mental health, but passionate involvement is not necessary for every charity. I guess all these charities that have the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and the Duchess of Cornwall as their sponsors can just kiss Royal patronage goodbye when they die if it is not one that the younger royals are "passionate" about. Associating with the everyday people and showing care about the "small things" is the bread and butter of the Royal Family. It does not always have to be something big. I really believe that that Princes Charles, Harry, and William should stay away from the climate change cause. The Royals are supposed to be politically neutral and this is a politically charged topic. There are many people who don't believe in climate change and have strong feelings about that and cite evidence for their beliefs just as those who believe in climate change do. Therefore it is a political issue. Some of the people that Meghan put on the cover of Vogue are very politically divisive people. She should have chosen everyday people in Britain and the Commonwealth since that is her and Harry's focus. The Queen is a great example to follow. For 67 years she has been a unifying force for Great Britain and the Commonwealth by gracefully doing her duty, remaining politically neutral, interacting with the everyday people and not making celebrities or politically divisive people her focus. She has involved celebrities in things and has recognized them with OBE's, but that is far different than calling them forces for change. I have never heard her complain about her privacy being invaded. However, it appears that Harry thinks her way of doing things has to change for the future. In some ways it does, but don't rewrite the whole playbook. What the Queen has done has worked for 67 years. Why does it need to be "fixed" if it has mostly worked? To me, they appear to want to shut out the everyday person but cater to celebrities. I was so excited when Harry and Meghan first started dating and I hated the criticism they received. I was thrilled when they got married. However, with what I consider their missteps I am losing interest. I consider William and Kate to be private, but they are not anything in that respect like Harry and Meghan. They seem to strike the right balance. William has made some political statements in the past, but he seems to somewhat learn from them. Harry does not appear to. Maybe he and Meghan will eventually strike the right balance, but these younger royals seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They need to make a decision what they want more.

Well that's what I think too. The Queen Mother, the Queen, Princess Margaret etc had the press through good times and bad but never 'explained or complained' during the bad and during the good were not obsessed with hiding themselves or their children away. As I said, I'm not making a judgment on William and Harry but if they want their position in life to be a constant game of cat and mouse between themselves and the press/public then perhaps they are in the wrong situation and should just jack the whole thing in. I personally don't want that to happen but I'm finding their attitude really tiresome.

 

[Osipi]

For me, it all boils down to one word. Respect. No royal that works for the "Firm" and for the people for the greater good should have to fight tooth and nail for their private lives to remain just that. Private. Its not right that someone that is perceived as a public commodity should have every aspect of their lives both public and private be the subject for general consumption to amuse the masses.

This is the difference between then and now. Once the public engagements were over and done with, the older generation of British royals pretty much were left alone. Now it seems that the younger generation of working royals need to slam the castle gates, lower the portcullis and fill a moat with alligators to maintain their private lives.

There's something to be said of having the perk of being anonymous and of no interest to anyone. I appreciate that.

 

[Lady Reem]

I agree with these two statements. I am an American and the existence of the Royal Family does not affect me because my taxes do not go to them. However, purely as a fan of the Royal Family, I would hate to see them go away because I love all the clothing and jewels and seeing them interact with the everyday man. I also think they bring in a lot of tourism to Great Britain which certainly helps the economy. For instance, I would love to tour Great Britain to see the castles, Big Ben, Windsor, etc, but if the Royal family ceased to exist, I could care less about going. No offense whatsoever to anyone who is British, but these landmarks would cease to be relevant to me. The royal family creates a mystique around Britain. Anyway, when Harry was interviewed by Melody Hobson two or three years ago, he had the gall to suggest that young people “have all the solutions” to fix the world’s problems more so than older people because of all their connectivity. Gee, I can’t imagine how the world has managed to survive all these years. Also, when asked by Melody Hobson about the number of charities he, William, and Kate support as compared to his Grandmother, he says that we no longer live in a world where it works to just show up once a year to an event. I say tell that to the hundreds of charities of which the Queen supports by showing up once per year. I am sure they greatly appreciate it. He says you have to be involved and passionate about your work. I agree that it is good to be passionately involved with charities and I admire Harry for his work with Invictus and he, William, and Kate for their work in mental health, but passionate involvement is not necessary for every charity. I guess all these charities that have the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, and the Duchess of Cornwall as their sponsors can just kiss Royal patronage goodbye when they die if it is not one that the younger royals are "passionate" about. Associating with the everyday people and showing care about the "small things" is the bread and butter of the Royal Family. It does not always have to be something big. I really believe that that Princes Charles, Harry, and William should stay away from the climate change cause. The Royals are supposed to be politically neutral and this is a politically charged topic. There are many people who don't believe in climate change and have strong feelings about that and cite evidence for their beliefs just as those who believe in climate change do. Therefore it is a political issue. Some of the people that Meghan put on the cover of Vogue are very politically divisive people. She should have chosen everyday people in Britain and the Commonwealth since that is her and Harry's focus. The Queen is a great example to follow. For 67 years she has been a unifying force for Great Britain and the Commonwealth by gracefully doing her duty, remaining politically neutral, interacting with the everyday people and not making celebrities or politically divisive people her focus. She has involved celebrities in things and has recognized them with OBE's, but that is far different than calling them forces for change. I have never heard her complain about her privacy being invaded. However, it appears that Harry thinks her way of doing things has to change for the future. In some ways it does, but don't rewrite the whole playbook. What the Queen has done has worked for 67 years. Why does it need to be "fixed" if it has mostly worked? To me, they appear to want to shut out the everyday person but cater to celebrities. I was so excited when Harry and Meghan first started dating and I hated the criticism they received. I was thrilled when they got married. However, with what I consider their missteps I am losing interest. I consider William and Kate to be private, but they are not anything in that respect like Harry and Meghan. They seem to strike the right balance. William has made some political statements in the past, but he seems to somewhat learn from them. Harry does not appear to. Maybe he and Meghan will eventually strike the right balance, but these younger royals seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. They need to make a decision what they want more.

Meghan hasn’t actually complained about her privacy being invaded neither has she demanded that her privacy be respected, so unless there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary rather than taking as gospel accusations from the usual unreliable rabble - I’d apply some CS and be a bit more cautious, but that’s just me. Also bearing in mind that there ARE credible risks to the Sussex family in particular I wouldn’t begrudge their security detail taking the necessary preventative measures that are needed either!

Furthermore it strikes me as odd that Meghan gets accused by some of elitism just because she guest-edited (for a worthy cause I might add) British Vogue, a magazine whose covers have been graced by plenty other women of the royal family. The nature and structure of the British monarchy itself (and some might argue the current head) is the very definition of elitism and all this handwringing and faux-outrage just rings hollow in the grand scheme of things. This caring, good-natured woman has been doing the so-called “bread and butter” stuff that some like to grumble about since the day her engagement to Prince Harry was announced.

All these ructions all over the shop simply because she diversified a publication usually geared towards a certain type and featured a variety of women from different backgrounds and races doing their bit for humanity

(Just going to add that baby Archie deserves the same level of privacy that other non-royal/untitled children of working royals had while growing up.)

 

[Hallo girl]

Well that's what I think too. The Queen Mother, the Queen, Princess Margaret etc had the press through good times and bad but never 'explained or complained' during the bad and during the good were not obsessed with hiding themselves or their children away. As I said, I'm not making a judgment on William and Harry but if they want their position in life to be a constant game of cat and mouse between themselves and the press/public then perhaps they are in the wrong situation and should just jack the whole thing in. I personally don't want that to happen but I'm finding their attitude really tiresome.

You are right it is possible to have a private and public life. I accept that the royals cannot just wander down the street and pop into Mcdonalds for a burger on the way home etc etc. On the other hand it is possible to conduct personal close friendships away from the glare of publicity and as a result enjoy a private life.

 

[Curryong]

For me, it all boils down to one word. Respect. No royal that works for the "Firm" and for the people for the greater good should have to fight tooth and nail for their private lives to remain just that. Private. Its not right that someone that is perceived as a public commodity should have every aspect of their lives both public and private be the subject for general consumption to amuse the masses.

This is the difference between then and now. Once the public engagements were over and done with, the older generation of British royals pretty much were left alone. Now it seems that the younger generation of working royals need to slam the castle gates, lower the portcullis and fill a moat with alligators to maintain their private lives.

There's something to be said of having the perk of being anonymous and of no interest to anyone. I appreciate that.

Me too, Osipi. And it's worth reiterating, I think. The Queen Mum, Princess Margaret (who did have her own issues with the media) and Prince Philip and the Queen haven't had to live the majority of their young lives in the full gave of 24 hour news services, critical Twitter and Tumblr sites, online tabloid articles every few hours, people with cell phones who report every time they see a Royal out on a family occasion. It was and is a completely different world and set of circumstances.

 

[Lady Reem]

I hope Meghan is enjoying the remainder of her maternity leave despite the noise

 

[Dman]

Perfectly said, and yes, it still stands today.
They are there to serve others and not to promote themselves.
They have to do their duty to the public and in return people accept their enormous privileges such as wealth, influence, being role models etc etc
One will not go without the other.
Their duty includes to share important milestones of their private lives without the secrecy or drama that comes along with celebrities who will share as they like or don't like or gain from sharing or giving hints.
Royalty does not work that way, at least not in Britain.

She’s not promoting herself. She’s promoting people and charities and other organizations. Raising awareness on non political issues. It’s what the royals do.

 

[Fijiro]

According to Reuters, readers line up for a copy of British Vogue edited by Duchess of Sussex.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ue-edited-by-uks-duchess-meghan-idUSKCN1US1HZ

 

[Madame Verseau]

According to Reuters, readers line up for a copy of British Vogue edited by Duchess of Sussex.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ue-edited-by-uks-duchess-meghan-idUSKCN1US1HZ

This is interesting. Apparently with all the back and forth on the issue people are deciding to judge for themselves and buy a copy. I've seen some anecdotes that some plan to buy more than one. I am curious to see the initial sales numbers of the magazine.

For the cover one of the 15 is a 16 year old girl, Greta Thunberg, who advocates climate change. While some her age hang out at the mall she spoke at Davos for her cause. Luminary Bakery is an organization out of East London that helps marginalized women. This is not headed by a celebrity chef and Meghan gave a nod to them.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Personally I think it's good that wealthier people and royalty/nobility contribute to a lot of charities and causes for those less fortunate. Some people are so ridiculously rich that they don't know what to do with their money (as an example, not quite the same, with the Beckhams - they've just bought a summer pad in Miami when they have several other houses elsewhere) and I'd rather they donate the remaining money to a charity cause than for trivial things they won't need.

 

[Dman]

There are two things I disagreed with Harry and Meghan on:

1. Not announcing the hospital where Archie was born.
2. Not announcing Archie’s godparents and not selecting a press camera and few royal reporters to cover the arrivals and departures for Archie’s christening.

I just think those two things were decisions that could’ve been done differently.

That being said — Meghan, hasn’t done anything to bring on such a major backlash she has unfairly received. She is doing her royal duties and carrying out her obligations to her royal patronage’s and charitable interests like other members of her family are doing.

There’s nothing controversial about what, Meghan, is doing. I think once the maternity leave is over and the family get back to work, things can potentially calm down.

 

[Ista]

Personally I think it's good that wealthier people and royalty/nobility contribute to a lot of charities and causes for those less fortunate. Some people are so ridiculously rich that they don't know what to do with their money (as an example, not quite the same, with the Beckhams - they've just bought a summer pad in Miami when they have several other houses elsewhere) and I'd rather they donate the remaining money to a charity cause than for trivial things they won't need.

I think it's wonderful when extremely wealthy people give money to a charity, or fund a foundation or initiative. Where it gets tricky is when someone is extremely wealthy, and then tells others who are not wealthy at all what they should or should not be doing in a way that shows they really have zero comprehension about the tradeoffs the average person makes to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, and their children clothed. I'm all for bringing awareness to social issues--we need that, and we all need to be mindful of the impact of the choices we make. But members of royal families like the Sussexes have many, many more choices because of their relative wealth and status, and it would be a good thing for them to keep that in mind when they speak, something not everyone in the BRF has managed 100% of the time, and which always sparks a certain level of outrage and resentment. Prince Harry is getting the same kind of blowback that others have gotten in the past for similar reasons.

 

[CTchic]

There are two things I disagreed with Harry and Meghan on:

1. Not announcing the hospital where Archie was born.
2. Not announcing Archie’s godparents and not selecting a press camera and few royal reporters to cover the arrivals and departures for Archie’s christening.

I just think those two things were decisions that could’ve been done differently.

That being said — Meghan, hasn’t done anything to bring on such a major backlash she has unfairly received. She is doing her royal duties and carrying out her obligations to her royal patronage’s and charitable interests like other members of her family are doing.

There’s nothing controversial about what, Meghan, is doing. I think once the maternity leave is over and the family get back to work, things can potentially calm down.

I disagree with you on point one. Could you imagine the maelstrom of cameras and reporters outside the hospital? The press would probably be go as far to try and find out what happened to the placenta.

 

[Zaira]

There are two things I disagreed with Harry and Meghan on:

1. Not announcing the hospital where Archie was born.
2. Not announcing Archie’s godparents and not selecting a press camera and few royal reporters to cover the arrivals and departures for Archie’s christening.

I just think those two things were decisions that could’ve been done differently.

That being said — Meghan, hasn’t done anything to bring on such a major backlash she has unfairly received. She is doing her royal duties and carrying out her obligations to her royal patronage’s and charitable interests like other members of her family are doing.

There’s nothing controversial about what, Meghan, is doing. I think once the maternity leave is over and the family get back to work, things can potentially calm down.

Agreed 100% with the two things you highlighted as missteps.

Look, Meghan and Harry have largely done with is expected of them. They have shared their special moments with the public, gone about their duties, and done as Queen and country have asked including two tours will Meghan was pregnant, one while she was in her third trimester! They have both shown devotion to their patronages and also shown how invested they are in using their platforms for overall good.

To be honest, Meghan has exceeded expectations in a massive way. Two successful projects on the books, one happening in the first four months of her being a royal with Together, three foreign tours or visits, day aways, a duchy visit, taking on new patronages (including some from the Queen), a new project already announced, all while adjusting to the role, a new country, a pregnancy and baby.

But what I will say is that I am personally really proud of Meghan and what she has accomplished thus far. I am also happy, if wishing sometimes it wasn't the case for my own mental well-being while royal watching, to see the conversations around race in the UK that have been happening with more frequency thanks to Meghan. I don't know if it will lead to change, but I hope more awareness at least.

I am also proud of how much Harry has grown these past 6 years in particular. He has truly come a long way. I hope we see him increase his work load in the fall and I am excited for his new conservation project.

I am anxiously awaiting my own issue of Vogue. I have several girlfriends in the US who have asked me to have my bestie in London send over several copies too for them. I've seen a lot of excitement amongst women of color in my circles about this issue. Whether that translates into sales, Idk. But for me, it doesn't really matter either way. I am super excited to continue to see what Meghan and Harry do next!

 

[Dman]

I disagree with you on point one. Could you imagine the maelstrom of cameras and reporters outside the hospital? The press would probably be go as far to try and find out what happened to the placenta.

I was talking about after Archie was born and mother and baby went home. I think not saying where the birth took place was unnecessary. That’s done and over with though.