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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zaira said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I understand that some might view Meghan's actions since becoming engaged as 'exceeding expectations', others might view exactly the same as clear signs of an unhealthy overachiever - by someone who is using the royal family as her new platform to continue promoting her own causes and interests instead of first and foremost serving the crown.

So, while on the one hand it is wonderful that Harry was able to find a wife who was willing to take on his life (something he was (rightly) worried about as it's not an easy role to fulfill; and we've also seen other royal wives who show opposite behavior - which isn't helpful either); imo she comes across as a little too eager to use her relationship with Harry (because that's what brought her in this position) to shine on a larger stage.
 
Somebody said:
While I understand that some might view Meghan's actions since becoming engaged as 'exceeding expectations', others might view exactly the same as clear signs of an unhealthy overachiever - by someone who is using the royal family as her new platform to continue promoting her own causes and interests instead of first and foremost serving the crown.

So, while on the one hand it is wonderful that Harry was able to find a wife who was willing to take on his life (something he was (rightly) worried about as it's not an easy role to fulfill; and we've also seen other royal wives who show opposite behavior - which isn't helpful either); imo she comes across as a little too eager to use her relationship with Harry (because that's what brought her in this position) to shine on a larger stage.
Click to expand...

I...am honestly speechless that from my post about someone who is clearly doing everything asked of her while also doing even more that shines a lot of British communities and orgs...you got to "unhealthy overachiever."

And I am sorry that you have an issue with "overachieving." Is the bar so low for royals? Given everything they have for nothing but the luck of birth or marriage, they should all be going above and beyond. Meghan has and is serving the crown: she has taken on things from the Queen, done tours, done engagements, etc.

Just like other royals, she has interests that she is particularly passionate about that also works on. How is she any different than other royals beyond her success and the current hyper focus on her? (presumably that focus will die down). This is exactly what I mean. Meghan cannot win with some people. It is beyond comprehension.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:

I don't think this is about winning; royals don't have to win (nor loose); it's not a competition. They need to do their job in the best way possible - I am sure that is what Meghan is trying to do - but in trying to do so, at times she seems a little too eager and self-promoting.

My post was mainly meant to show how the same facts might be interpreted differently by different people (your interpretation (as that is what it is) is as valid as any others - it's not about right and wrong/true or untrue) but unfortunately I didn't succeed.

And finally, to clarify; I never said that Meghan did not serve the crown (she clearly does at times - especially the tours they have undertaken together are impressive and not many 'new royals' would be as comfortable as Meghan). I questioned whether that is her primary focus (which is why I used 'first and foremost') - at times it seems that 'her own interests' take center stage. So, imho she might be a victim of her own drive and success.
 
The reality is Meghan is not new to this. She isn't an unknown person thrust into the spotlight. Nor is she someone who has never taken on charity work before. Meghan had a career, had businesses like her blog and clothing line, and several high profile charitable causes before marriage.

Meghan doesn't need Harry to vault her into her charity work. She was an ambassador for the UN and for World Vision prior to marrying Harry. One could argue her UK charities are step down from her previous charitable work.

And considering the job of a royal is to Work and promote charities, to criticize her for working is a joke:bang:

Wow I have missed a lot being away for work the past month. Forgot summer holidays for royals are still busy time.

Camilla Tominey is attacking her for not having diverse enough women, and having three women who are attached to 'luxury brands'. Vogue being too luxury. What magazine would one suggest is not 'too posh' for her to work with. The point is to get word out, and the most readers, Vogue does that.

The women she chose seems a lovely mix of races, cultures and causes. And for those who constantly criticize Meghan for not being UK enough, a nice mix of commonwealth figures as well.

-Adwoa Aboah-mixed race British model and advocate for mental health
- Adut Akech-Australian raised Sudanese model, UN advocate for refugees
-Ramli Ali-first Muslim championship boxer in UK
-Jacina Ardem- Caucasian PM of New Zealand, feminist and supporter of LGBTQ and minority rights
-Sinead Burke-Caucasian Irish writer and advocate, supporter of women's positive body image and making fashion available for all sizes
-Gemma Chan- British of Chinese ancestry actress. advocate against domestic violence and sexual abuse of women
-Laverne Cox- African American actress and supporter of LGBTQ rights
-Jane Fonda-Caucasian American actress and supporter of education and kids health
-Salma Hayek-Lebanese/Mexican actress advocate for violence against women as well as for immigrant rights
-Francesca Hayward-British-Kenyan prima ballerina
-Jameela Jamil- British actress of Pakistani-East Indian descent. She is an advocate for children and their access to culture and arts
-Chimamanda Adichie- Nigerian author. feminist and supporter of African culture
-Yara Shahidi-African American actress who is a promoter of getting young people out to vote. And an advocate of ending poverty through education
-Greta Thunberg- Swedish advocate for climate change. Nominated for a nobel prize at the age of 16
-Christy Turlington-model and advocate for Maternal health and AIDS

If we have to keep count:
-5 of African heritage
-3 of mixed race (2 African/Caucasian and 1 Latino/Lebanese)
-5 Caucasians
-1 Asian
-1 Indian/Pakistani


I love Harry was involved with his interview with Jane Goodall. I have been a huge fan of hers since I was little and I wish I could meet her in person.


I saw criticism online that Meghan didn't choose Melania Trump. While yes Ardem is PM in NZ, I think Melania is too political. It would bring too much attention for wrong reasons. It would also look like a fake move IMO. Meghan is known as an opponent to Trump in the past. And her choosing melania may be seen as an attempt to sweep under the rug her not attending the state banquet which seems to still be seen as an insult.



Thrilled to also see Meghan's clothing collection starting to raise money for the Smart Works. Its such a fantastic initiative. I love like the cook book she was involved in, she is involved in something more hands on and concrete then simply making visits to charities.



Wow next time I have to be away for work for a month, I should try and plan it when royals are less busy :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I rarely post, but I read most of what is posted (sometimes things get deleted before I read it), but I'm really trying to understand how doing something well makes a person an "unhealthy overachiever". What cause/charity has she promoted, that did not support The Royal Family? I think royals should be prepared when they do engagements, it shows respect for the people who work for the charity and the people they serve, not self promotion.
 
General News about the Sussex Family, Part One: May 2019 -

duchessrachel said:
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.
Click to expand...



Thank you for your very thoughtful post. You make good and relevant points. I thought from the beginning, that Meghan's success or otherwise would depend on whether she saw her role as being a support for Harry and the Monarchy, or developing further as a celebrity. I like her and think she is very interesting. But in the end, Monarchy is not an equal opportunity institution. And it seems to me that Meghan doesn't at this stage understand how to support it. I think her choices for Vogue underline this. As you suggest, Commonwealth women and more British women might have helped. Heaven knows, there are no shortages of such candidates.
 
Last edited:
Without wanting to come across repetitive and it’s been mentioned/referenced many times already: women past and present of the BRF have directly collaborated with British Vogue.

British people and people from the commonwealth ARE featured in this edition of Vogue.

And yes we know the monarchy is not an “equal opportunity institution”, it’s why the cries of “elitism” against Meghan because she dared collaborate with British Vogue rings hollow. This is a woman working with the mag to help raise awareness of causes that help the marginalised and promotes people at the forefront of these endeavours in order to encourage others. How on God’s earth can this be wrong? People featured in this edition are from a mix of backgrounds/races which isn’t typical of this magazine and should be celebrated not scorned.

Unlike other royal women the DoS doesn’t feature on the cover because this particular edition isn’t about her or just about fashion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alicia said:
Thank you for your very thoughtful post. You make good and relevant points. I thought from the beginning, that Meghan's success or otherwise would depend on whether she saw her role as being a support for Harry and the Monarchy, or developing further as a celebrity. I like her and think she is very interesting. But in the end, Monarchy is not an equal opportunity institution. And it seems to me that Meghan doesn't at this stage understand how to support it. I think her choices for Vogue underline this. As you suggest, Commonwealth women and more British women might have helped. Heaven knows, there are no shortages of such candidates.
Click to expand...


There are about 8 women who fall into the Commonwealth/British category. Countessmeout was kind enough to post a breakdown of the nationalities of the women a few posts above.
 
Oh Harry, that message is very very sweet. I'm sure Meghan appreciated this!
 
My concern about the Sussex’s is not what they are doing but the method and manner that it is been conveyed. The purpose of a lesser royal, ie anyone except the Queen and yes one days king is to support the monarch. You dont just loose your privacy you loose your identity , you are not going to Wimbledon as Duke of Kent you are going as a representative of HM the Queen. You are not opening a church in Kenya as the Earl of Wessex , you are there as extension of HM the Queen. So did HM guest edit Vogue? Would she have edited Vogue?
Meghan and Harry are placing themselves above their position and this will be a terrible problem in the end. A royal once told me - the HM comes first , the charity work, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth comes second. Your wants, beliefs and personal life don’t come into it. That is the sacrifice you make for the privilege afforded to you in life.
Many royals do voluntary works, donate funds or see that funds are made available and other stuff that we will never hear about. Because they come from a generation that see the good of it been removed if it is done for self promotion. Most of these charities aren’t glamourise and hyped, but do they need less assistance?
 
Claire said:
My concern about the Sussex’s is not what they are doing but the method and manner that it is been conveyed. The purpose of a lesser royal, ie anyone except the Queen and yes one days king is to support the monarch. You dont just loose your privacy you loose your identity , you are not going to Wimbledon as Duke of Kent you are going as a representative of HM the Queen. You are not opening a church in Kenya as the Earl of Wessex , you are there as extension of HM the Queen. So did HM guest edit Vogue? Would she have edited Vogue?
Click to expand...

Would the Queen have done a lot of the things her children have done? No she wouldn't have. I can't list them all here because my post will be deleted for making comparisons with other royals but the list is huge.
 
Lilyflo said:
Would the Queen have done a lot of the things her children have done? No she wouldn't have. I can't list them all here because my post will be deleted for making comparisons with other royals but the list is huge.
Click to expand...

You are correct but also bear in mind that the queen has modernised during her reign. We moved from radio address to television now we have social media. Huge changes within one reign. So the younger royals are changing but no more than the queen has done previously. It is all about checks and balance.
 
Somebody’s “overachiever” point and Claire’s “no other royal would ever guest edit a periodical or appear in Vogue” post really underscore an idea I’ve been thinking about for a while.

I believe a lot of the problems in the Sussex threads stem from people trying to attach “logical” or “evidentiary proof” to what is really an emotional or amorphous reaction.

We have all met people in our lives who, for whatever reason, we just don’t like. Maybe they’re too similar to us, or too different, but (for whatever reason) we just don’t hit it off. And the most innocuous things they do can drive us bonkers.

No one is required to like every royal. People should be allowed to dislike whomever they choose. But, it creates needless strife (and pointless, endless debate) when people try to disguise or rationalize an opinion that really isn’t based on facts. Some of these “justifications” for why Meghan has let them down or is acting improperly are very contrived and inconsistent.

Rather than invent traditions or unspoken rules that the DoS has violated, just say that where others see eagerness and excitement, you see selfish ambition and self-promotion. Or that you can’t escape the conclusion that she’s using Harry/the Firm/HM for her own ends.

Disclaimer: this isn’t meant to suggest that Meghan has not made any mistakes. Or that there’s no substantive criticism of her actions or statements. But, i hope we can agree that at least some of the rationales we’ve seen don’t withstand scrutiny. People aren’t required to like everyone. And they don’t have to articulate a reason for their dislike. But articulating a fake reason wastes everyone’s time.
 
Claire said:
So did HM guest edit Vogue? Would she have edited Vogue?
Meghan and Harry are placing themselves above their position and this will be a terrible problem in the end.

Because they come from a generation that see the good of it been removed if it is done for self promotion. Most of these charities aren’t glamourise and hyped, but do they need less assistance?
Click to expand...

The Prince of Wales guest-edited Town and Country, the Duchess of Cambridge guest-edited The Huffington Post. Would the queen have done likewise? I suppose you’d have to ask her. Would she have an issue with family members who guest-edit magazines for good causes? I very much doubt it. Meghan and Harry are not “placing themselves above their station”

“Self promotion” for Meghan would be if she had featured herself on the cover of the magazine, but she didn’t. She focused attention where it should be.
 
Last edited:
Claire said:
My concern about the Sussex’s is not what they are doing but the method and manner that it is been conveyed. The purpose of a lesser royal, ie anyone except the Queen and yes one days king is to support the monarch. You dont just loose your privacy you loose your identity , you are not going to Wimbledon as Duke of Kent you are going as a representative of HM the Queen. You are not opening a church in Kenya as the Earl of Wessex , you are there as extension of HM the Queen. So did HM guest edit Vogue? Would she have edited Vogue?
Meghan and Harry are placing themselves above their position and this will be a terrible problem in the end. A royal once told me - the HM comes first , the charity work, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth comes second. Your wants, beliefs and personal life don’t come into it. That is the sacrifice you make for the privilege afforded to you in life.
Many royals do voluntary works, donate funds or see that funds are made available and other stuff that we will never hear about. Because they come from a generation that see the good of it been removed if it is done for self promotion. Most of these charities aren’t glamourise and hyped, but do they need less assistance?
Click to expand...


My personal guess is that HM agreed to Meghan editing the British Vogue. Would she have done it herself - no, you're right here. But she surely supported Meghan's decision, because let's face it: Maghan and Harry talk to HM, especially once they have a project that is sooo publicily available. I don't think either HM or The Prince of Wales were against it. They probably even agreed to her choices for the cover pic. THE RF protects what is theirs: sometimes with actions, but at any time with advice. Meghan appears top me as a person who is very much listenting to advice from HM and Charles.



I don't agree with the fact that "minor Royals" should be quieter than the major ones in direct line. These are people who know who they are - and what they can get away with. I don't think it would have been okay for Catherine to edit Vogue. Because she one day will be the female symbol of the institution. But Meghan is "just" the Duchess of Sussex and will never hold a highert title (apart from being the wife of the king's second son one day) and this is exactly a job that's fitting for a modern Royal.



Thus far, Meghan has not yet caused a scandal, even if the rags tend to claim that every week and at least I have yet to see negative character traits of her besides being work-driven and with a clear stand on how her life should be within the Royal parameters. She uses the freedom she and Harry have in a wise way and that makes me like her. But then I loved Princess Diana and Prince Charles, even though I knew what they did to each other. But that didn't include me while their public work had a positive impact on the world around me. And that's what counts for me.
 
i also agree with you Ista - comms for the sussexes are just atrocious. that, combined with the fact that they seem to be quite special characters (keeping birth private, keeping christening and godparents of archie private), and what you have is a PR shamble.
 
Whenever I think of what the BRF would or wouldn't do, especially in terms of celebrity, I always remember the Queen's spectacular turn as a Bond Girl, to the astonishment of many in her own family. Guest editing Vogue, Town and Country and The Huff Post are small potatoes.

I find the "not in the mainline" argument to be not particularly relevant at this point, William is the heir's heir and there's decades before the little Cambridges grow up enough to be the young adult face of the monarchy as both couples now are.

That said I do think they need a more efficient and coherent communications and PR department in the face of known reactions to Meghan leaving the house.
 
Heavs said:
Whenever I think of what the BRF would or wouldn't do, especially in terms of celebrity, It always remember the Queen's spectacular turn as a Bond Girl, to the astonishment of many in her own family. Guest editing Vogue, Town and Country and The Huff Post are small potatoes.

I find the "not in the mainline" argument to be not particularly relevant at this point, William is the heir's heir and there's decades before the little Cambridges grow up enough to be the young adult face of the monarchy as both couples now are.

That said I do think they need a more efficient and coherent communications and PR department in the face of known reactions to Meghan leaving the house.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t what stuffy folk would regard as appropriate behaviour for a monarch but that was sooooooooo funny :lol:
 
Last edited:
Happy Birthday, Meghan! And congratulations on a successful run as guest editor!
 
Kataryn said:
My personal guess is that HM agreed to Meghan editing the British Vogue. Would she have done it herself - no, you're right here. But she surely supported Meghan's decision, because let's face it: Maghan and Harry talk to HM, especially once they have a project that is sooo publicily available. I don't think either HM or The Prince of Wales were against it. They probably even agreed to her choices for the cover pic. THE RF protects what is theirs: sometimes with actions, but at any time with advice. Meghan appears top me as a person who is very much listenting to advice from HM and Charles.



I don't agree with the fact that "minor Royals" should be quieter than the major ones in direct line. These are people who know who they are - and what they can get away with. I don't think it would have been okay for Catherine to edit Vogue. Because she one day will be the female symbol of the institution. But Meghan is "just" the Duchess of Sussex and will never hold a highert title (apart from being the wife of the king's second son one day) and this is exactly a job that's fitting for a modern Royal.



Thus far, Meghan has not yet caused a scandal, even if the rags tend to claim that every week and at least I have yet to see negative character traits of her besides being work-driven and with a clear stand on how her life should be within the Royal parameters. She uses the freedom she and Harry have in a wise way and that makes me like her. But then I loved Princess Diana and Prince Charles, even though I knew what they did to each other. But that didn't include me while their public work had a positive impact on the world around me. And that's what counts for me.
Click to expand...

Kate has guest-edited before--and Huffpo as a 'news' site (really more of an opinion site IMO) is very political and partisan, even. Charles has also guest-edited and talked about climate change in Country Life. William has appeared on magazine covers, including for the LGBT community.

I think folks chalk a lot up to position in the family when that is shown time and time again to have little bearing on what the royals do or not. A lot more has to do with the individual royal's personality, interests, etc., than position.

I also don't think the Queen signs off personally on most projects the family does especially not these days. Like any CEO type figure, I think if something is a major, major thing, she will be briefed. But it wouldn't shock me if Meghan doing Vogue wasn't something she was briefed about until later/would feel the need to give approval on. Not saying this is for sure what happened, just that I think the Queen is largely hands-off unless something is of immediate concern. But maybe Meghan told her while over tea at Windsor or maybe the Queen was briefed about every bit lol! But it wouldn't shock me if she wasn't until it was ready to be released.

The younger royals in particular (BOTH couples) seem to especially have a great deal more autonomy that they protect fiercely.
 
Last edited:
There *is* a solution if you think you know someone or a cause that should be highlighted by The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They're asking for suggestions and its open until tomorrow under "Who is your force for change?"

I've already submitted someone and so can you. They're involving their followers in this. Its interactive. Its a way to use your voice and there must be a whole lot of good people doing good works out there because there have been a whole lot of responses. ?

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0mUoLvlaj9/
 
Zaira said:
Kate has guest-edited before--and Huffpo as a 'news' site (really more of an opinion site IMO) is very political and partisan, even. Charles has also guest-edited and talked about climate change in Country Life. William has appeared on magazine covers, including for the LGBT community.

I think folks chalk a lot up to position in the family when that is shown time and time again to have little bearing on what the royals do or not. A lot more has to do with the individual royal's personality, interests, etc., than position.

I also don't think the Queen signs off personally on most projects the family does especially not these days. Like any CEO type figure, I think if something is a major, major thing, she will be briefed. But it wouldn't shock me if Meghan doing Vogue wasn't something she was briefed about until later/would feel the need to give approval on. Not saying this is for sure what happened, just that I think the Queen is largely hands-off unless something is of immediate concern. But maybe Meghan told her while over tea at Windsor or maybe the Queen was briefed about every bit lol! But it wouldn't shock me if she wasn't until it was ready to be released.

The younger royals in particular (BOTH couples) seem to especially have a great deal more autonomy that they protect fiercely.
Click to expand...

Yes, to all of this. Meghan guest editing is completely non-controversial, since there is plenty of precedent for it, and I am 100% sure that there will be more stints like this by other BRF members in the future.

I also see no evidence that the Queen signs off on each and every thing the other members of the family do (or wear, which we've seen suggested on some threads). She'd hardly have time for anything else if she did, and she clearly has better ways to spend her time.
 
Last edited:
Zaira said:
Kate has guest-edited before--and Huffpo as a 'news' site (really more of an opinion site IMO) is very political and partisan, even. Charles has also guest-edited and talked about climate change in Country Life. William has appeared on magazine covers, including for the LGBT community.

I think folks chalk a lot up to position in the family when that is shown time and time again to have little bearing on what the royals do or not. A lot more has to do with the individual royal's personality, interests, etc., than position.

I also don't think the Queen signs off personally on most projects the family does especially not these days. Like any CEO type figure, I think if something is a major, major thing, she will be briefed. But it wouldn't shock me if Meghan doing Vogue wasn't something she was briefed about until later/would feel the need to give approval on. Not saying this is for sure what happened, just that I think the Queen is largely hands-off unless something is of immediate concern. But maybe Meghan told her while over tea at Windsor or maybe the Queen was briefed about every bit lol! But it wouldn't shock me if she wasn't until it was ready to be released.

The younger royals in particular (BOTH couples) seem to especially have a great deal more autonomy that they protect fiercely.
Click to expand...


The problem with guest editing is that the choices you form an opinion and no Royal should have an opinion on hot button topics. LGBT is not a hot button topic in the UK, in that people aren't trying to restrict the rights of those people. There is some controversy about education and religious backgrounds though. Will's cover didn't seem to me political at all. There is a majority consensus about homosexuality.

Kate's Huffington Post edit was 'The content will draw attention to the inspiring work being done by parents, teachers, young people and researchers around the country.' again, not political.

Charles' Country Life? Unless he called lupins socialist, not political. He saves that for his letters! :lol:

Meghan is interviewing Michelle Obama, former First Lady who the current White House has set themselves up as in opposition to. And she is promoting the PM of New Zealand, a country the Queen reigns over, in which HM has an official opposition. So its not the act of the editing Vogue, but the content. I'm not sure Meghan particularly is interested in the usual Royal uncontroversial charitable fare, children, the ill or disabled, animals, and the military. Not to say she's not interested in those types of people but she prefers to focus on women and diversity so far.
 
Last edited:
Ista said:
Yes, to all of this. Meghan guest editing is completely non-controversial, since there is plenty of precedent for it, and I am 100% sure that there will be more stints like this by other BRF members in the future.

I also see no evidence that the Queen signs off on each and every thing the other members of the family do (or wear, which we've seen suggested on some threads). She'd hardly have time for anything else if she did, and she clearly has better ways to spend her time.
Click to expand...

I know that each and every thing that any of the BRF do that appear in the Court Circular representing the Queen is A-OK'd by HM but not every single thing that royals do for their own charities and patronages. Taking certain charities and patronages may need to be OK'd by HM but that's why they have staff that communicates between the households. I do think the Queen takes a big interest in what her family is doing and getting into and stays on top of everything to do with the monarchy.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I believe that the Queen is very pleased with how Meghan is fitting into the family and her royal role. If there was something seriously amiss, she'd put a quick kibosh on it. She's been innovative herself as far as doing things "outside the box" such as the mic drop video with the Obamas for the Invictus Games and her stunt double jumping out of a helicopter to open up the Olympic Games. Personally, I like the "outside the box" things. They're fresh and new and innovative and get people talking and stay remembered for a long time.
 
This is moving stuff from Matt Haig
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0thflqAB8x/
Got home to some unusual mail, amid all the bills and magazines.

An envelope from Kensington Palace.

HRH Duchess Meghan called me a ‘force for change’ and now I can die happy.

This year is beyond anything I imagined, years ago, getting rejection after rejection from publishers.

I would love to go back in time and tell my young hopeless suicidal self about all of this magic to stay alive for.

Persist. (I have now enrolled for handwriting classes.)
Click to expand...
Meghan makes this world brighter for so many people


 
Rena M. said:
This is moving stuff from Matt Haig
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0thflqAB8x/

Meghan makes this world brighter for so many people


Click to expand...

A lovely note :flowers:

And a reminder to those complaints that Meghan didn't include men.....she did. Yes the cover focussed on women, but the magazine goes well beyond the cover.

Matt Haig is a gifted poet and writer. Not only was his poem included by Meghan on positive body image, but he is a vocal figure on mental health.



Meghan is interviewing Michelle Obama, former First Lady who the current White House has set themselves up as in opposition to. And she is promoting the PM of New Zealand, a country the Queen reigns over, in which HM has an official opposition. So its not the act of the editing Vogue, but the content. I'm not sure Meghan particularly is interested in the usual Royal uncontroversial charitable fare, children, the ill or disabled, animals, and the military. Not to say she's not interested in those types of people but she prefers to focus on women and diversity so far.
Click to expand...


There isn't the 'usual charitable fare'. All royals have their own passions and things to take on.

And if you don't think that the other royals have taken on topics that are controversial:
-Charles certainly has caused a lot of stir on his political pressure over green energy
-Camilla has taken on domestic violence
-the fantastic four are taking on mental health issues
-Eugenie is taking on human trafficking


And other then choosing a former first lady, what exactly is controversial about the topics she chose???

Meghan's patronages:

-Association of commonwealth universities: education, very popular royal topic, queen's own patronage
-The royal theater: arts, again a very popular royal topic, again queen's own patronage
-Mayhew- animals, something you mentioned, shelters a common royal theme such as Camilla
-Smart Works- helping women prepare for job interviews and get back into things
-queen's commonwealth ambassador- very much the royal prerogative


There is nothing wrong or controvercial on focussing on women. And certainly the only patronage she has that focusses on women is Smart Works. The theater, animal shelter, commonwealth universities all focus on men and women. As does her support of the heads together campaign with Harry and Cambridges.
 
Last edited:
Mey said:
The problem with guest editing is that the choices you form an opinion and no Royal should have an opinion on hot button topics. LGBT is not a hot button topic in the UK, in that people aren't trying to restrict the rights of those people. There is some controversy about education and religious backgrounds though. Will's cover didn't seem to me political at all. There is a majority consensus about homosexuality.

Kate's Huffington Post edit was 'The content will draw attention to the inspiring work being done by parents, teachers, young people and researchers around the country.' again, not political.

Charles' Country Life? Unless he called lupins socialist, not political. He saves that for his letters! :lol:

Meghan is interviewing Michelle Obama, former First Lady who the current White House has set themselves up as in opposition to. And she is promoting the PM of New Zealand, a country the Queen reigns over, in which HM has an official opposition. So its not the act of the editing Vogue, but the content. I'm not sure Meghan particularly is interested in the usual Royal uncontroversial charitable fare, children, the ill or disabled, animals, and the military. Not to say she's not interested in those types of people but she prefers to focus on women and diversity so far.
Click to expand...

I will need to tell my LGBT friends in the UK that face homophobia everyday in the UK that there is apparently a "consensus" on the issue so all is good. William actually touched on this recently himself.

Charles' Country Life cover(s) also touched on climate change--a hot button issue even in the UK with lots of people calling climate change activists "alarmists" and "extremists." Charles has long been called political including on this issue.

Kate's HuffPo stint included an article from Michelle Obama who was FLOTUS at the time and thus in a political position versus Meghan asking Michelle (forever FLOTUS in my heart though she is) while she is only a former FLOTUS now. So again, not controversial. William interviewed Jacinda at Davos about mental health...I again didn't see any hand wringing about that.

And I am not going to keep going down this vein. But it should be noted, that many of the 'traditional' BRF issue areas you highlighted as her not being into she HAS done things for or have a patronage in. In fact for Vogue, some of the people she picked for the cover focus on those very areas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JessRulz
  • Locked
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021
48 49 50
Replies
1K
Views
185K
JessRulz
JessRulz
JessRulz
  • Locked
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021
28 29 30
Replies
874
Views
102K
Jacknch
Jacknch
JessRulz
  • Locked
General News about the Sussex Family, Part Two: April-August 2020
68 69 70
Replies
2K
Views
248K
JessRulz
JessRulz
JessRulz
  • Locked
Duke and Duchess of Sussex, General News 3: February - May 2019
23 24 25
Replies
731
Views
120K
soapstar
soapstar
Madame Verseau
  • Locked
Meghan and Harry Plus One
2
Replies
57
Views
6K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom