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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
...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...


Well it couldn’t have been that bad given there were multiple reports at the time of attempts made by Reitmans (unsuccessfully) to renew her contract with them. Evidently her personal life was headed in a completely new direction that required a certain level of discretion. Anyway, below is a link to the official statement released at the time.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty/02017041735022/meghan-markle-ends-reitmans-deal

In a statement to HELLO!, Reitmans confirmed that its contract with the Suits star has run its course. “The partnership with Meghan Markle and Reitmans ended on a very positive note, and in line with the contract. The initiative was always meant to contain only two collections that were created with our in-house team of Montreal based designers and two advertising campaigns to support these collections."

“The partnership ended as was originally planned. We are very pleased with the collaboration we shared and we wish Meghan Markle much happiness in the future.”

The news comes just a week after the star closed her lifestyle blog The Tig, which focused on food, travel, beauty and fashion. There is speculation as to whether these events mean Meghan is preparing for a future with Prince Harry, although no news has been announced as of yet.
 
Last edited:
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.)

Grace Kelly was an actress and American too and her marital connection to Monaco (during an extremely conservative era worldwide) was mainly celebrated. I understand what you mean about circumstances, but if the circumstances were reversed today and Harry married American actress Grace Kelly we would not be seeing the agitation/outrage we see linked with M&H.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
A landmark issue indeed.

I like what the author said about the Vogue’s September Issue having turned the conversation away from fashion, to recognizing women for what they do rather than what they wear or how they look.

This is a step in the right direction. The end of the journey will be when we look at all people for who they are on the inside instead of on the outside. ?
 
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.

I am sorry but I did not read his full statement regarding two children.
 
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.

Oft times, I'll read a post and go about doing ordinary things and that's when the light bulb comes on.

When it comes to tradition and being staid and how things are expected to be done as far as "working royals" and carving out a role for themselves within the "Firm", actually the way things are now is relatively new in the overall scheme of things and it really took off and defined "working royal" moreso back in the time of the Queen's children (especially Charles and Anne). Up until that time, British royals did engagements and duties and appearances but nothing like it is today. Charles totally defined the Prince of Wales position.

Now we talk about Harry and Meghan finding their niche and their purpose in their roles as being expected of them. 100 years ago, they could have opted for being seen at the symphony or the opening of a hospital and have spent their times having a very busy social life, wearing tiaras and jewels and having country weekend parties.

Now, they're expected to be doing and appearing and their burps can be heard around the world instantly. How times have changed eh? :D
 
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.
CTchic, there is tradition of royals being activists. Charles and Diana are prime examples of this tradition. Meghan is just following in their footsteps. One thing not traditional about her is her skin color and that's it.



BTW, Duchess of Sussex is doing wonderful things and it's high time to start thinking about people she is helping and stop "othering" her. What's wrong with royals helping less fortunate?
 
CTchic, there is tradition of royals being activists. Charles and Diana are prime examples of this tradition. Meghan is just following in their footsteps. One thing not traditional about her is her skin color and that's it.



BTW, Duchess of Sussex is doing wonderful things and it's high time to start thinking about people she is helping and stop "othering" her. What's wrong with royals helping less fortunate?

Great post, Rena M! I agree with you. I think it’s time for people to pay attention to the vision and the work, Meghan, is doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ealing-plans-launch-womens-clothing-line.html


This can't be accurate, can it?
I mean, even if all the profits go to charity, wouldn't she be accused of cashing in on the royal connection, much as Sophie was when she had her PR business?

Meghan isn't launching her own fashion line. This is, again, the media spinning wildly inaccurate headlines.

It is early days yet so more details will be forthcoming, but basically Meghan approached these businesses and asked them to create a capsule wardrobe for Smart Works (so Meghan isn't designing anything and its not her name on it). They agreed and in addition to working with Smart Works, they will also donate 1 outfit for every 1 outfit sold from the capsule line to Smart Works.

You can read about it in Meg's Vogue article or in this Sussex post:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B0lk8DWpNkq/
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ealing-plans-launch-womens-clothing-line.html


This can't be accurate, can it?
I mean, even if all the profits go to charity, wouldn't she be accused of cashing in on the royal connection, much as Sophie was when she had her PR business?



It is accurate, it was just confirmed in instagram. But, as far as I managed to understand it, it’s not so much her clothing line. It’s more a clothing line in collaboration with certain shops, like Jigsaw, where for every item sold, one goes to Smart Works.

Meghan will be accused of whatever people can accuse her of anyway. So she’d better make it worthwhile.
 
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/

While I love the fact that Meghan has done this issue, I’m not in total agreement with this article. Especially these particular quotes:

In fact, speaking of reflections, turning the sixteenth panel on the cover into a mirror—so that the reader might see themselves reflected as a “force for change”—is inspired...

Equally so, what makes this issue such a landmark is that it has turned the conversation away from fashion and towards something more pressing: the incredible work of women and the positive change they are having on the world. A bold move for a leading fashion title that is a message in itself...

For perhaps the first time ever, what the stars are wearing is the least interesting or important thing about the cover.

Glamour Magazine has been doing a 'Women of the Year’ issue for 20+ years now. The issue highlights women and girls of all ages, races and backgrounds -from actresses to activists to athletes to scientists. Last year the cover featured women such as, Betty Reid Soskin (a 97 year old National Park Service Ranger) and the gymnasts who took down Larry Nassar. Glamour also has an annual awards ceremony to coincide with the issue. They also do a College Women of the Year.

As for the mirror, that's been done by a number of fashion and political magazines before - British Vogue did it for their 1999 ‘Millennium’ issue, Time Magazine did it for their 2006 'Person of the Year’ issue and Elle Australia did it for their 2015 “Be the Cover” issue, in which they highlighted woman who were breaking barriers and making a change.

I’m not saying Meghan shouldn’t be applauded for what she’s done. She should be. I just don’t think it's fair to dismiss, or diminish the work that others have done when it comes to highlighting women and diversity.
 
Last edited:
I see the royal role in relation to charity and other projects as one to shine a light on the issue.
In a tv interview that princess anne gave a number of years ago, this is how she described her role. She didnt claim to be an expert in specific areas but knew enough of the right people to make connections and get things done. She never stepped forward and took the credit.
 
Last edited:
I see the royal role in relation to charity and other projects as one to shine a light on the issue.


Duchess of Sussex is the master of shining light on the issues and generating lots of money for her charities. I can only applaud her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting how the same story ran yesterday said it was William and Kate who were there and now its Harry?
 
Interesting how the same story ran yesterday said it was William and Kate who were there and now its Harry?

I saw that same story. Interesting how quick that changed.
 
Both Sussexes need better advisors. They could do with projecting a more focused and coherent message to influence young people especially. They are all over the place with luxury Vogue, right-on green issues, global jet travel, nestling family - all highly confusing.
 
Both Sussexes need better advisors. They could do with projecting a more focused and coherent message to influence young people especially. They are all over the place with luxury Vogue, right-on green issues, global jet travel, nestling family - all highly confusing.

I happen to believe their charitable message is pretty clear. I think the problem is the royal press have a major problem with the work the Sussexes are doing and making it seem like the couple are going into a non-royal route.

I said awhile back on the forums that we have to allow the Monarchy step into the future and not try to make the royal institution stay in the past. The new faces of the British royal family have to be allowed to carve their own path in a modern way. Both royal couples are doing just that.
 
:previous: I agree and I think being a relevant, "non-political" spare to the heir (even if that's fairly meaningless today) is difficult thing to figure out. And I am positive that "just make the same decisions the previous two generations did" is a non-starter in the modern world. Never-mind that the previous two generations (and Will and Kate as well) had lots of missteps as they figured their jobs out. :whistling:

But I also understand why people are anxious. I like the Sussexes a lot and I support many of the things they seem to back. I think they have done much much good.

I just think there is a bit too much "have my cake and eat it" going on. Too much playing the royal trump card while wanting to be seen as everyday folk. Too much willingness to give flip answers (tweet style) that are easily misinterpreted in another context. Too much kvetching about how they are so wronged or about how others are not exactly like them. In my world we all get to make our own decisions and then live with them.

I've increasingly decided to just lay back in the weeds and give the Sussexes time to figure out their path. I am quite sure it will change and flex as changing seems to be what they do very well. I am willing to give them time and space. Rather than rabid adoration or loathing or microscopic analysis.

In ten years it will be interesting to see how all this works out.
 
Last edited:
:previous: I agree and I think being a relevant, "non-political" spare to the heir (even if that's fairly meaningless today) is difficult thing to figure out. And I am positive that "just make the same decisions the previous two generations did" is a non-starter in the modern world. Never-mind that the previous two generations (and Will and Kate as well) had lots of missteps as they figured their jobs out. :whistling:

But I also understand why people are anxious. I like the Sussexes a lot and I support many of the things they seem to back. I think they have done much much good.

I just think there is a bit too much "have my cake and eat it" going on. Too much playing the royal trump card while wanting to be seen as everyday folk. Too much willingness to give flip answers (tweet style) that are easily misinterpreted in another context. Too much kvetching about how they are so wronged or about how others are not exactly like them. In my world we all get to make our own decisions and then live with them.

I've increasingly decided to just lay back in the weeds and give the Sussexes time to figure out their path. I am quite sure it will change and flex as changing seems to be what they do very well. I am willing to give them time and space. Rather than rabid adoration or loathing or microscopic analysis.

In ten years it will be interesting to see how all this works out.

I'm beginning to lean this way, too. The Sussexes clearly have the desire and the will to do good things, and I appreciate some of the causes they have taken on. On the other hand, they occupy positions of incredible privilege--designer wardrobes, friends with private jets, a luxury lifestyle and so on. It's going to be a challenge to walk the line between advocating for important causes and not coming across as blazing hypocrites, a line which Charles has frequently run aground on.

I'm also of the opinion that their social media has not always served them well, and they need to get a handle on how they are going to use it going forward.
 
In a way, coming across as doing great things and backing and supporting so many good incentives and causes does sometimes hit a snag in the fabric and they're finding out what works and what doesn't work. This, to me, shows me that Harry and Meghan are deliciously human. Us humans make mistakes, go through trials and errors but I have to give them an A+ for effort.

We know the Queen loves a goof up during an engagement as it relieves the boredom and repetition. Harry and Meghan are allowed also to have "ooops" moments and try new things and its not going to be the end of the world as we know it. They will find their stride in time and things will smooth out.

I think the secret is to remember that this couple is just as human and fallible as the rest of us are. At least when the rest of us goof up or things go not exactly the way we planned, all the eyes of the world aren't watching us. That is a perk, I think, we have. :D
 
From what I’m seeing, some out there think, Meghan, isn’t allowed to do what other members of the royal family has done. Guest-editing a magazine, for charitable purposes, is what others in the family has done and they’ve even posed in the magazines. It seems like the opinion is, Meghan, isn’t allowed to do this for some reason. That’s why we’re hearing so much ruckus on the net.
 
I think most of the criticism is about their approach to issues rather than the issues themselves.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, they occupy positions of incredible privilege--designer wardrobes, friends with private jets, a luxury lifestyle and so on. It's going to be a challenge to walk the line between advocating for important causes and not coming across as blazing hypocrites, a line which Charles has frequently run aground on
The point that you made is very political. In an unequal world we now live in, there are rich people living luxury lifestyle who are also supporting charities. And royals obviously belong to the privileged. Do you propose to change the system?
I'm sure it is a subject for an altogether different topic
 
Lawn bowling is associated with older people - a relation of mine who is in his mid-70s is a keen player - but that's probably because they have more time. I like the idea of Meghan taking an interest in it
 
I'm beginning to lean this way, too. The Sussexes clearly have the desire and the will to do good things, and I appreciate some of the causes they have taken on. On the other hand, they occupy positions of incredible privilege--designer wardrobes, friends with private jets, a luxury lifestyle and so on. It's going to be a challenge to walk the line between advocating for important causes and not coming across as blazing hypocrites, a line which Charles has frequently run aground on.

I'm also of the opinion that their social media has not always served them well, and they need to get a handle on how they are going to use it going forward.

Here’s the latest headline:

Backlash at barefoot Prince Harry and 'hypocrite Greenerati': Eco-warrior elite who turned up at secret climate change Google camp in 114 private jets, helicopters and mega yachts are mocked for leaving their own carbon footprint

This is the kind of thing you want to avoid lest you get labelled a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
The point that you made is very political. In an unequal world we now live in, there are rich people living luxury lifestyle who are also supporting charities. And royals obviously belong to the privileged. Do you propose to change the system?
I'm sure it is a subject for an altogether different topic

There will always be the Haves and Have-nots.

But what is irritating is when the Haves preach about what everyone else should be doing, while refusing to abide by it themselves.
They want to save the environment- as long as it doesn't personally inconvenience them. (Private jets, for example?)

So it isn't a shock when people call them out on it, and point out the hypocrisy.
 
I think most of the criticism is about they’re approach to issues rather than the issues themselves.

You, see, that’s just it! I really don’t see a problem with their approach to the issues.

I think there’s some that’s wary of the Monarchy approaching the end of The Queen’s reign and don’t want the the old royal firm to step into the modern age. It’s like they want to keep the royal family outdated because they figure that’s more of a safe place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom