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

[Duchessblack]

“When, in decades to come, historians look back they will surely designate this day as the day the tide finally turned against global warming.
Or as the beginning of the end of the Royal Family.
One or the other.
Or both.”

Via Andrew Neil Twitter


Highly respected BBC journalist Andrew Neil posted this tweet in response to Harry declaring they’re only having 2 children in order to save the planet.

A lot of people are becoming tired of this constant virtue signalling

Is that what he said exactly? that he wants to have 2 children to save the planet?



“Africa's rapidly growing human population is predicted to more than double by 2050, a staggering increase of three and a half million people per month.
“There is no question that this increase puts wildlife and habitat under enormous pressure. Urbanisation, infrastructure development, cultivation—all good things in themselves, but they will have a terrible impact unless we begin to plan and to take measures now.”- Prince William speaking on population control.


Not trying to start any bickering. This is just to illustrate that it is not just Harry who has spoke on the subject.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I agree, I suspect this is exactly the issue some members of the public have with the Sussexes. As an American, I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression the British want a Royal Family that makes them feel good about themselves. They want to see them smiling, waving, showing off their cute little babies, visiting hospitals, supporting the arts & charities, and performing other good works.

In general, calling people's attention to the marginalized can make them uncomfortable - it's a criticism of the social fabric of which they are a part - and therefore it must be done in small doses. As others have pointed out, it can come across as lecturing, especially from an outsider (Meghan), even if that wasn't the intention. It's all about perception.

I admire Meghan very much - and Harry too - they are both very hardworking and genuinely concerned about the marginalized. Their hearts are definitely in the right place. But fair or not, I suspect the public isn't prepared for their style of "activist" royalty, at least for now, however commendable their work is.

I'm not at all sure how they should handle this. Do they keep their heads down, tone down their enthusiasm, and follow a quiet & more traditional royal path, until the public grows used them? Would they be comfortable with that? I really have no idea.

Just my thoughts.

This is beautifully put, Gawin, and has made me think about the role of the monarchy in the UK in a way I never have before.

Meghan has always- admirably, in my opinion- made it clear that her belief is that those in a position of influence should use their position to influence social change for what they personally view as "the better" for society. Harry seems to share that vision. In fact, in their engagement interview, I remember thinking that it seemed that when Harry met Meghan, it finally "clicked" for him how his role could be used for a purpose and that was when his life began to fall into place in his own mind. What a beautiful thing to see.

But the purpose and role of a monarchy is to represent what is, not to be a force for change. Because when the monarchy starts to lead the "change," it inherently means that people would be looking to the monarchy for what that change should be-- and that is exactly what the monarchy is NOT purposed to do. The monarchy must take its lead from the mood, culture, and climate of the people, and not the other way around-- in other words, it must not lead but most be led.

Once it tries to lead, there may-- actually, history shows us there will-- come a day when it chooses a direction in which to lead that the people disagree with-- socially, politically, culturally. Then it will blink and be gone.

I post this here in the Current Events thread to explain my perspective on why some people may cast a side eye at this latest project: not because we don't admire Meghan, her work, or her vision, but because it is a bit at odds with what we see as how exactly the monarchy and its representatives function in UK society. Of course, others' opinions will respectfully differ.

 

[tommy100]

I guess what I am trying to say is - are Meghan and Harry doing anything wrong - no not really.
is there a problem - yes, this much negative coverage means a change in presentation is required at the least.

Gawin - excellent post - I wonder if part of it is that the British public feel that M&H only are in the position they are because of the British people - the monarchy is in a way a public institution - so people don't want people they feel are only in the position they are because of the public telling them how to live their life and how to be better. You are right - the monarchy should take its cue from the public mood to best represent the country, not try to force the country into a position and thinking.

 

[Susan999]

I agree, I suspect this is exactly the issue some members of the public have with the Sussexes. As an American, I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression the British want a Royal Family that makes them feel good about themselves. They want to see them smiling, waving, showing off their cute little babies, visiting hospitals, supporting the arts & charities, and performing other good works.

In general, calling people's attention to the marginalized can make them uncomfortable - it's a criticism of the social fabric of which they are a part - and therefore it must be done in small doses. As others have pointed out, it can come across as lecturing, especially from an outsider (Meghan), even if that wasn't the intention. It's all about perception.

I admire Meghan very much - and Harry too - they are both very hardworking and genuinely concerned about the marginalized. Their hearts are definitely in the right place. But fair or not, I suspect the public isn't prepared for their style of "activist" royalty, at least for now, however commendable their work is.

I'm not at all sure how they should handle this. Do they keep their heads down, tone down their enthusiasm, and follow a quiet & more traditional royal path, until the public grows used them? Would they be comfortable with that? I really have no idea.

Just my thoughts.

I too think this is an excellent post.

Just my analogy, but, you have to be close friends with a person before you can criticise them without causing offence. I don't think Meghan and Harry (as a unit, because the old Harry pretty much disappeared on his wedding day) have become "close" enough with the British public to be able to so openly criticise society without causing offence.

Meghan was obviously very keen to throw herself into royal life, which is admirable. I do think a bit more time spent learning about the purpose and role of the royal family in modern day Britain would have been helpful. I'm concerned that she sees Royal and Social Activist as synonymous. She is perhaps inspired by Diana, who could have been described as a Social Activist towards the end of her life, but is forgetting that Diana spent years as an ordinary Royal, building up popularity before daring to openly criticise society. Had Diana started out as a Social Activist I don't think she would have been well received by the public at all.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Meghan's project with the patronage Smart Works. No matter what she keeps going. You go, girl.

 

[Fijiro]

I just made an observation regarding the wedding of Louis and Marie Ducruet of Monaco. Marie is bi-racial, her mother is of Asian descent. There were no negative remarks or notations in the media or press or the public; it is quite different to what happened with Harry and Meghan.
.

 

[Pranter]

I think Diana has little to do with what Meghan is doing. She's been involved in 'causes' for a long time before Harry and she's a woman in her mid 30's (when she met Harry) not a teenager with little life experience (when Diana started 'dating' Charles)..of course Diana didn't start out with 'causes' ..she had to grow into that. Meghan joined the family already in full swing in regards to 'causes'.

Charles has been causing offense for years with his comments about the environment etc etc. It seems if anyone is being inspired it is Harry being inspired by his father and now having the confidence or determination to speak out.



LaRae

 

[Ista]

I hope Gawin and Susan999 will correct me if I misread or misinterpreted their posts, but I think the larger point that was being made was that even Diana, who did move into supporting more controversial causes as she got older, had years of building up public trust and affection before she took on some of those. While Meghan is no stranger to causes, she was a stranger to the British public, and didn't have that backlog of good will and trust. It's an interesting point to ponder, if in Harry and Meghan's eagerness to leverage their position, they went a little too fast. I'll have to think about that one, but I do think it's an interesting perspective.

 

[Muhler]

I just made an observation regarding the wedding of Louis and Marie Ducruet of Monaco. Marie is bi-racial, her mother is of Asian descent. There were no negative remarks or notations in the media or press or the public; it is quite different to what happened with Harry and Meghan.
.

That is very much, I think, because it is less of an issue in Europe than in certain segments in USA. - Who may have or see an interest in making this marriage very much about race. - While it is really much more about culture.
And in Europe it is IMO much more about two cultures marrying. The American and the British.
In Britain (and Continental Europe) I dare say that Meghan is seen first and foremost as an American - Who happens also to be bi-racial.
While (again in certain segments in particular) in USA, Meghan is seen as a bi-racial woman who is American.
I.e. an African-American versus an American - who happens to be bi-racial. See the difference?
(Elaboration: While many Americans see themselves as Irish-American, African-American, Native-American etc. Elsewhere they are seen as American - period.)

Having said that it does not mean there isn't racism in Europe, of course there is.
It is just my deep impression that the main objections that some Britons have
against Meghan, are more based in her cultural background (being an American) and her personal background (family) than her racial composition.
To that we may add, trying to change things in a country that prides itself very much on traditions. Something all newbies everywhere should be careful about.

As things are in Europe right now, religion and culture can be an issue! Race much less so.

 

[Lady Reem]

That is very much, I think, because it is less of an issue in Europe than in certain segments in USA. - Who may have or see an interest in making this marriage very much about race. - While it is really much more about culture.
And in Europe it is IMO much more about two cultures marrying. The American and the British.
In Britain (and Continental Europe) I dare say that Meghan is seen first and foremost as an American - Who happens also to be bi-racial.
While (again in certain segments in particular) in USA, Meghan is seen as a bi-racial woman who is American.
I.e. an African-American versus an American - who happens to be bi-racial. See the difference?
(Elaboration: While many Americans see themselves as Irish-American, African-American, Native-American etc. Elsewhere they are seen as American - period.)

Having said that it does not mean there isn't racism in Europe, of course there is.
It is just my deep impression that the main objections that some Britons have
against Meghan, are more based in her cultural background (being an American) and her personal background (family) than her racial composition.
To that we may add, trying to change things in a country that prides itself very much on traditions. Something all newbies everywhere should be careful about.

As things are in Europe right now, religion and culture can be an issue! Race much less so.

The Sussexes but Meghan in particular have received nothing but goodwill from the British public whilst out and about carrying out public engagements. And even though there’s a deluge of untrue narratives via the usual BM quarters about the DoS on an almost daily basis that started from day one, and the narratives are designed to sway people a certain way. The Sussexes are still standing strong in spite of all this and will continue to because the general British public overall have far too much common sense than to fall for the scheming poison pens. And the rational majority are indifferent either way to the RF as a whole. Also, in terms of ordinary trolls going after the couple on social media there is data supported evidence that suggests most are from across the pond.

 

[Gawin]

I hope Gawin and Susan999 will correct me if I misread or misinterpreted their posts, but I think the larger point that was being made was that even Diana, who did move into supporting more controversial causes as she got older, had years of building up public trust and affection before she took on some of those. While Meghan is no stranger to causes, she was a stranger to the British public, and didn't have that backlog of good will and trust. It's an interesting point to ponder, if in Harry and Meghan's eagerness to leverage their position, they went a little too fast. I'll have to think about that one, but I do think it's an interesting perspective.

Yes, but I think it also goes beyond that.

HighGoalHighDreams stated it much better than I did:
"The purpose and role of a monarchy is to represent what is, not to be a force for change. Because when the monarchy starts to lead the "change," it inherently means that people would be looking to the monarchy for what that change should be-- and that is exactly what the monarchy is NOT purposed to do. The monarchy must take its lead from the mood, culture, and climate of the people, and not the other way around-- in other words, it must not lead but most be led."

As others have pointed out, Charles has been criticized for his stand on issues such as climate change, alternative medicine, GM, architecture and sustainable agriculture.

So yes, building goodwill is an issue, but members of the BRF must also consider how involved they should even be with issues/causes that might be construed as controversial or unpopular. Where do they draw the line? I have no idea. I just have the impression some people think Harry & Meghan have crossed it. Should they take a step back?

On top of that, Meghan is perceived by some an "outsider" and an nontraditional bride for a member of the BRF (American, biracial, activist, successful career, divorced). Fair or not, some members of the public probably resent what they perceive as an outsider "instructing" them on marginalized members of the society they belong to & causes they should support.

I've always thought that British commoners (with one exception) who marry into the BRF bring an important asset to the table - they have an insider's knowledge of British public opinion & what the British expect from their RF. Catherine, for example, has been criticized for being bland but IMO this is a deliberate choice on her part. She has chosen to follow a very traditional role in order to avoid the controversy surrounding her husband's mother, stepmother, and Sarah Duchess of York. IMO she has a sense of what the general public expects from the wife of a future king & mother of another and acts accordingly.

As a foreigner, Meghan doesn't have that advantage. She's never been a member of the British public. Neither have the royals. To them the public are outsiders. We saw this all too clearly during the Charles vs Diana debacle. Diana understood the British public far more than poor Charles did and she used it to her advantage. Likewise, the Queen Mother found it easier to mingle with the public than her in-laws did, but in her case she used this to strengthen the RF's popularity.

I think a lot of the criticism leveled at Harry & Meghan is unfair but like it or not, the BRF depends on the public's goodwill. Do I have a solution? No, definitely not. On the one hand I admire the couple & their work very much but on the other I sometimes wonder if it would be better from a PR perspective if they took a step back and adopted a more low-key approach, at least temporarily. I really don't know the answer.

And that's my wishy-washy opinion. ?

 

[Rena M.]

Oh my - this sounds wonderful:

Meghan has partnered with Marks & Spencer, John Lewis, Jigsaw & her friend Misha Nonoo to launch a capsule collection of workwear to benefit Smart Works, the nationwide charity that helps unemployed and vulnerable women back into the workplace.

The collection, launching later this year, will sell on a one-for-one basis. “For each item purchased by a customer, one is donated to charity,” Meghan writes in British Vogue “Not only does this allow us to be part of each other’s story, it reminds us we are in it together.” (via Omid Scobie)

Wow! This is amazing news. Love it! Duchess of Success https://twitter.com/scobie

 

[Gawin]

The Sussexes but Meghan in particular have received nothing but goodwill from the British public whilst out and about carrying out public engagements. And even though there’s a deluge of untrue narratives via the usual BM quarters about the DoS on an almost daily basis that started from day one, and the narratives are designed to sway people a certain way. The Sussexes are still standing strong in spite of all this and will continue to because the general British public overall have far too much common sense than to fall for the scheming poison pens. And the rational majority are indifferent either way to the RF as a whole. Also, in terms of ordinary trolls going after the couple on social media there is data supported evidence that suggests most are from across the pond.

So are my posts about Meghan & the British public completely off-base? I live in the U.S. and I have no idea how to gauge British public opinion about her, only what I read in the media which (as we know) is highly critical. What does the average person really think about her?

 

[Rena M.]

Interesting interview on just now on Channel 4's TV News:
https://www.channel4.com/news/bisho...-prince-harry-for-speaking-out-against-racism

Bishop-designate Rose Hudson-Wilkin: ‘Very proud’ of Prince Harry for speaking out against racism
After Meghan Markle faced a backlash in some newspapers for agreeing to guest edit the September issue of Vogue, Prince Harry has spoken frankly in the same magazine about racism and “unconscious bias”.

We speak to the woman about to become the Church of England’s first black female bishop, Rose Hudson-Wilkin.

Being white myself I find it very important topic to talk about honestly and I'm happy that Harry named IT. Public bulling of Meghan opened my eyes to racism on the different level.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

So are my posts about Meghan & the British public completely off-base? I live in the U.S. and I have no idea how to gauge British public opinion about her, only what I read in the media which (as we know) is highly critical. What does the average person really think about her?

I think your posts were thoughtful and had a valid point. But I too live in the U.S. so my viewpoint doesn’t answer your question.

 

[duchessrachel]

I agree, I suspect this is exactly the issue some members of the public have with the Sussexes. As an American, I'm an outsider looking in so maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression the British want a Royal Family that makes them feel good about themselves. They want to see them smiling, waving, showing off their cute little babies, visiting hospitals, supporting the arts & charities, and performing other good works.

In general, calling people's attention to the marginalized can make them uncomfortable - it's a criticism of the social fabric of which they are a part - and therefore it must be done in small doses. As others have pointed out, it can come across as lecturing, especially from an outsider (Meghan), even if that wasn't the intention. It's all about perception.

I admire Meghan very much - and Harry too - they are both very hardworking and genuinely concerned about the marginalized. Their hearts are definitely in the right place. But fair or not, I suspect the public isn't prepared for their style of "activist" royalty, at least for now, however commendable their work is.

I'm not at all sure how they should handle this. Do they keep their heads down, tone down their enthusiasm, and follow a quiet & more traditional royal path, until the public grows used them? Would they be comfortable with that? I really have no idea.

Just my thoughts.

Your post got me to thinking. I am an American, and I have never viewed the Monarchy as a force for change. I have always thought it is supposed to be a unifying, constant, and stabilizing force amid the constant change.
I never thought the role of the Monarchy was activism. Some of what Meghan and Harry have put forth in Vogue (or what I have read in articles which have stated the content) could make some feel lectured to or that Harry and Meghan are saying "you should be like us". That does not make people feel good about themselves and really it may put a large portion of the population at odds with them. For instance, when Harry said that they would only have two children because of the "carbon footprint", it could make people who really admire Harry and Meghan feel that they have done something bad by having more than two children. I don't think making people feel bad is their intention, but I think that sometimes Harry is impulsive and does not think through some of the things he says. Anyway, I would love to hear what the residents of the United Kingdom on the forum feel about how Harry and Meghan's activism fits in with the role of the Monarchy.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

The partnership between Meghan and these clothing companies is wonderful news. I have been involved with several organizations that have done similar work, and think it is so powerful. It is transformative for women who could otherwise not afford to dress for interviews to be afforded this opportunity, as it is for men when other organizations provide them similar assistance. I hope this positivity remains the chief focus of Meghan's involvement. This venture will transform lives.

I also think it's problematic, and I'd like to share why.

Some are drawing parallels to Meghan's ventures in Canada, where she tried her hand at her own branch of a clothing line. The venture, by all reports, was not a success. On one hand, this shows how Meghan is using her past experiences and passions to shape her royal role. On the other hand, it is easy to see how she is susceptible to criticism that she is using her newfound connections and fame to fulfill her own personal ambitions from the past-- and the monarchy is not a vehicle for people to fulfill their own ambitions.

To put it succinctly, I feel that the projects Meghan has endeavored to undertake walk a thin line between using her passions and experience to enrich the lives of others, and on the other hand giving the unfortunate appearance that Meghan is simply building for herself a more grandiose version of the life she lived in the past, using what people perceive is taxpayer money and public goodwill. I do not believe the latter is her intention; I believe the former to be her intent. I believe Meghan chooses events and causes connected to her former life because it lets her use her passion and experience; but I think it is coming off as her trying to introduce the world to her passions and interests, when the point of her role is to know and understand the passions, needs, and interests of others and serve those.

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps the way Meghan is going about doing things isn't so wrong as much as its different. I remember another young royal that stepped outside of the comfort zone with her patronages and took on AIDS and that wasn't too very well received. At first.

We're looking at how the British royals are now going into the future with their philanthropic works. Its not all just showing up for a photo op and ribbon cutting or plaque unveiling but changing the focus of their work and how they go about getting the message out. Perhaps the methods aren't familiar yet and they seem odd or out of place for a royal to be but one thing they do more now than ever before is reaching a wider audience globally even.

 

[Gawin]

Perhaps the way Meghan is going about doing things isn't so wrong as much as its different. I remember another young royal that stepped outside of the comfort zone with her patronages and took on AIDS and that wasn't too very well received. At first.

We're looking at how the British royals are now going into the future with their philanthropic works. Its not all just showing up for a photo op and ribbon cutting or plaque unveiling but changing the focus of their work and how they go about getting the message out. Perhaps the methods aren't familiar yet and they seem odd or out of place for a royal to be but one thing they do more now than ever before is reaching a wider audience globally even.

Yes, and I suppose it also depends on where the criticism is coming from. Is it the public? Or just the press?

 

[Mirabel]

I just made an observation regarding the wedding of Louis and Marie Ducruet of Monaco. Marie is bi-racial, her mother is of Asian descent. There were no negative remarks or notations in the media or press or the public; it is quite different to what happened with Harry and Meghan.
.

That may be simply a matter of recognition.
Almost everyone has heard of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

How many would know of Louis Ducruet? I'd venture to guess very few.

 

[gerry]

Perhaps the way Meghan is going about doing things isn't so wrong as much as its different. I remember another young royal that stepped outside of the comfort zone with her patronages and took on AIDS and that wasn't too very well received. At first.

We're looking at how the British royals are now going into the future with their philanthropic works. Its not all just showing up for a photo op and ribbon cutting or plaque unveiling but changing the focus of their work and how they go about getting the message out. Perhaps the methods aren't familiar yet and they seem odd or out of place for a royal to be but one thing they do more now than ever before is reaching a wider audience globally even.

Could not agree more! I have just read the British Vogue September issue (maybe this should be a new topic, mods) and am impressed with the research implied in the material presented by the Duchess. There is clearly a great deal of thought and not a small amount of humour included in the magazine (this last element is something I do miss when skimming through the Sussex thread in TRF).

 

[Madame Verseau]

I found this article from Forbes and its belief of September Vogue being a landmark

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-issue-is-landmark-in-more-ways-than-one/amp/

 

[Zaira]

Oh for goodness sake. Harry never said he was only having two kids because of the environment. Here is what he actually said:

Harry: It does make it different. I think, weirdly, because of the people that I’ve met and the places that I’ve been fortunate enough to go to, I’ve always had a connection and a love for nature. I view it differently now, without question. But I’ve always wanted to try and ensure that, even before having a child and hoping to have children…

Dr Jane Goddell: Not too many! [Laughs]

Harry: Two, maximum! But I’ve always thought: this place is borrowed. And, surely, being as intelligent as we all are, or as evolved as we all are supposed to be, we should be able to leave something better behind for the next generation.

I am honestly just astounded by the lack of attention to detail in media headlines.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I just made an observation regarding the wedding of Louis and Marie Ducruet of Monaco. Marie is bi-racial, her mother is of Asian descent. There were no negative remarks or notations in the media or press or the public; it is quite different to what happened with Harry and Meghan.
.

Ah, but Marie is of a different ancestry than Meghan. I don’t think there was much uproar when Prince Joachim married Alexandra either.

But Meghan being American as well as a former actress marrying Diana’s son plays into this too. The whole package attracts attention. (Note, circumstances, not actions, attract the attention.)

 

[Zaira]

I just made an observation regarding the wedding of Louis and Marie Ducruet of Monaco. Marie is bi-racial, her mother is of Asian descent. There were no negative remarks or notations in the media or press or the public; it is quite different to what happened with Harry and Meghan.
.

Anti-blackness is a particularly strong and nasty prejudice. I don't want to derail the thread, but how black folks are treated in public and the media is very different from other ethnic minorities [its not a competition, just pointing something out] so its not shocking Marie was subjected to less.

Plus, you are talking about someone who most people outside of very dedicated royal watchers don't know. Its apples and oranges in terms of circumstances.

 

[CTchic]

Your post got me to thinking. I am an American, and I have never viewed the Monarchy as a force for change. I have always thought it is supposed to be a unifying, constant, and stabilizing force amid the constant change.
I never thought the role of the Monarchy was activism. Some of what Meghan and Harry have put forth in Vogue (or what I have read in articles which have stated the content) could make some feel lectured to or that Harry and Meghan are saying "you should be like us". That does not make people feel good about themselves and really it may put a large portion of the population at odds with them. For instance, when Harry said that they would only have two children because of the "carbon footprint", it could make people who really admire Harry and Meghan feel that they have done something bad by having more than two children. I don't think making people feel bad is their intention, but I think that sometimes Harry is impulsive and does not think through some of the things he says. Anyway, I would love to hear what the residents of the United Kingdom on the forum feel about how Harry and Meghan's activism fits in with the role of the Monarchy.

You must have read something different but I see nothing in what Harry said to put down people fir having more than two children. Their choice to have 2 kids is theirs. I don't understand where people think they are being critical of people having more kids. A poster had raised William's quotes from a while ago talking about the dangers overpopulation whilst Kate was pregnant with Louis which many interpreted as hypocritical.

With regards to their activism, I am personally fine with it. I say this as a Black Briton. If people like tradition and being staid, you got the Cambridges. The Sussexes have carved a role out for themselves which was a problem for the previous spare prince.

 

[JR76]

Re the difference in approach towards Meghan and Marie the key here is that we're talking about two different countries, two very different royal families with very and two different cultural contexts. We're also talking about two families that are completely different re global media interest.
We've already seen members of the extended Grimaldi family marry people of African descent and then adopt a child with the same background and Prince Albert himself has a bi-racial son. Never, at least to my recollection, has the issue of race been more than a footnote in the coverage of these people. The only time where I feel the narrative got close to racist is, again as far as I can remember, when covering the different outbursts of Nicole Coste in a way that got close to the "angry black female" trope.
Monaco, French press and Europe in general is no multi-cultural paradise and there's rampant racism showing its ugly face everywhere, but it's still wrong to look at it from a viewpoint grounded in the tragedy that was the American chattel slavery.
Re Alexandra Manley I can honestly say that her ethnic background was never seen as anything other than positive. The Danes fell in love with her immediately and any sort of expression of racism against her would've been shut down immediately by the Royal family. More importantly nobody in the public, media or any politician would have reacted anything but negative towards it.

 

[Lady Reem]

So are my posts about Meghan & the British public completely off-base? I live in the U.S. and I have no idea how to gauge British public opinion about her, only what I read in the media which (as we know) is highly critical. What does the average person really think about her?

What I am trying to say is that the BM narratives about Meghan began long before now, before she even started doing what some now refer to as ‘woke’ stuff in the U.K. The swamp of questionable stories and nitpicking everything she does/says/wears began as soon as she arrived on the scene doing no more than the basic stuff other female members of the BRF do and incredibly it gathered pace once her pregnancy was announced. So she may as well do the good she wants to do because it doesn’t look like the situation is going to change in any case. And yes while there are undoubtedly some elements amongst ordinary people that will always see Meghan as different no matter what she does or says as is the case in other countries, nevertheless, the bigger picture remains the same re unrelenting narratives being driven by a determined section of the BM.

It is really sad he is having to do this but I feel Prince Harry is trying in his own way to defend or at least divert the negativity away from his wife onto himself however ill-advised or ‘politically correct’ his latest musings come across to some.

 

[JessRulz]

Several posts have been removed.

Please note, it is unnecessary to post every single negative (or positive, should the situation arise) opinion piece on the subject of Meghan's Vogue guest editing spot. It is repetitive, and agenda-driven. Both of which are outside of the guidelines for the Sussex forum and TRF.

At this stage, unless anything new comes about from the Vogue stint, any opinion pieces are now repeating what has already been said in the press, and will be deleted as such.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

I'm really pleased and impressed with this clothing line capsule Meghan has started for smart works. Reading smart works tweets, they also are absolutely thrilled, and see this as a wonderful boost for them. Great job Meghan, for combining her connections, new and old, for this project.

As for the two children, Harry only said "Two, max" when Jane asked if they were planning to have many children. No mention of carbon footprint, big families, no swipes against anyone. Just pointing that out. I think it's quite unfair to make that quote to something it clearly wasn't, and the fake outrage about it is just silly. Imho.