Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

I feel bad for Meghan's father, actually. He doesn't want any part of the tabloid frenzy, but they don't care, and have found out the place he lives, and published it. He doesn't deserve it.

I think publishing someone's address like that should be against the law. He should sue them, but then that would only bring him more attention.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Alliec76

I think some people are always going to have an issue with Meghan because she just does not fit their idea of who a member of the British Royal Family should be, and that includes her family and background. And since she can't change that (nor would she want to) that's just how it will be.

That's the truly unfortunate part. And the Duchess of Cambridge faced this too. While I don't follow her much, I did remember that being something that was talked about quite often in articles that I've seen over the years. And the part that always made me roll my eyes is the people at the pinnacle of of it (ie the Queen, PoW, William, and Harry) don't seem to care enough for it, at least not in recent years. It's always others that think so and so isn't good enough or well bred enough for them.

As for selling the photos, it just depends on your perspective. I find it annoying obviously because I support the couple. But if I look at it from their perspective. Would I sell a few old photos of someone that I've not talked to in years for a six figure sum? I don't know until I'm in that situation, but I certainly can't fault them for making an economical decision.

I do, however, have problems with the content of the interviews from the friend. There is just something about how she talks about what went down and about Meghan's ex-husband that's so skeevy. I mean, we all have friends, and I'm sure all of our friends have gone through heartache, whether it be divorce or break up. It's hard. Trevor hasn't said anything about Meghan, and that to me means that he doesn't feel the need to hurt her from their divorce, so it couldn't have been that bad. Same thing with Cory. And Trevor and Meghan didn't even use lawyers during their divorce. They went to a mediator and worked it out themselves. To me, that seemed rather mature and amicable. And if Meghan doesn't want to tell anyone, especially a friend that eventually stabbed her in the back, why it happened, then that's entirely understandable. I don't feel like not wanting to confide in someone else about the reason for your divorce is sketchy. It's a private matter.

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

I think publishing someone's address like that should be against the law. He should sue them, but then that would only bring him more attention.

I wouldn't be surprised if KP takes issue with this behind the scenes. A lot of times we don't see what goes on other than what's published. However, we've seen things like the Sun issuing an apology to Meghan and Harry for insinuating Meghan is in porn. We didn't know anything about the legal proceedings that were going on in the background for months.

Originally Posted by Juliette2

That is absolutely true, I was thinking the same thing myself, but, if that's the case, a "friend" would have had only nice things to say about Miss Markle no matter if their friendship's status is today. In this case, it seems that not only pictures were sold but unflattering stories as well.

Honestly, I don't think it's just the money for her. She has an ax to grind clearly. I don't know what went down between them, but based on how Meghan has conducted herself and how this ex-friend has conducted herself. It's obvious who is the one with class and who is the one that's vindictive.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Princess Larisa

Hate to break it to you and your mother, but we almost never see the real royals in front of the camera. They are always nice, smiling, calm, thrilled to visit totally boring and horrible places and I could go on. No one is that on all the time in their private life. Just like I behave differently when I’m at work and talking to customers or my boss, so do the royals. They are human beings after all.

Yes, one only has to remember the roles Diana and Charles played from about 1986 until 1992 before their marital problems because public knowledge.

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Alliec76

I find this fascinating. The British seem to have an almost disdain for people "rising above their station", where in America, you'd be judged for not wanting to better yourself. Of course your going to go to the best school you can. Of course your going to try and meet the right people. That's how you advance your career and make a living. It's almost an expectation. If you weren't doing those things, people would think you weren't serious. I'm not saying that we don't have our own class issues here in the US, cause boy do we ever. But the British seem to hold a little tighter to some of these class distinctions. I think some people are always going to have an issue with Meghan because she just does not fit their idea of who a member of the British Royal Family should be, and that includes her family and background. And since she can't change that (nor would she want to) that's just how it will be.

The British media have a phobia to people rising above their station, I saw the same disdain for the Middleton family. It's almost like a lose/lose situation. You can't stay poor but you can't rise above your station. I think Meghan's outreach to media in the UK was misinterpreted as social climbing when she was looking for opportunity, interviews and content for her blog.

I find her confident in herself but also open and appreciative of others. I would love it if she has already started an internship at an organization or even the palace.

[soapstar]

I've deleted a bunch of off-topic posts. This thread isn't about Meghan and Harry's first official engagement, nor is it a place to pit Meghan against Kate. Please stop doing that. Let's stick to the topic, which is Meghan's family and background.

Also, the discussion about where Meghan will spend Christmas has been move to the General News thread.

[Rudolph]

Meghan will face the same ‘she’s just one us’ that Kate went through.

Before Kate’s wedding The Guardian newspaper wrote an article about it. ‘Kate she’s just like us’.

The writer said my daughter didn’t go to the same £30,000 a year school as Samantha Cameron and Princess Eugenie

My daughter doesn’t play tennis at The Queen’s Club

My daughter doesn’t have a trust fund

My daughter doesn’t holiday in Switzerland and Mustique

My daughter doesn’t have a £1 million flat in Chelsea

And so on and so forth

The point was Kate really wasn’t just like you and I and neither is Meghan in different ways

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Meghan will face the same ‘she’s just one us’ that Kate went through.

Before Kate’s wedding The Guardian newspaper wrote an article about it. ‘Kate she’s just like us’.

The writer said my daughter didn’t go to the same £30,000 school as Samantha Cameron and Princess Eugenie

My daughter doesn’t play tennis at The Queen’s Club

My daughter doesn’t have a trust fund

My daughter doesn’t holiday in Switzerland and Mustique

My daughter doesn’t have a £1 million flat in Chelsea

And so on and so forth

The point was Kate really wasn’t just like you and I and neither is Meghan in different ways

I don't have the problem with the she's just like one of us narrative, although it can really be debated if they are. The narrative I find repulsive is that Kate/Meghan isn't good enough for the royal princes. The one of us narrative is pretty tame. The truly dog whistle comments are about how Kate comes from coal miners or Meghan comes from slaves and risen to become a member of the royal family. Or how Carol Middleton is so conniving and marrying her daughter to William. Or how Meghan is so good at hussling and bagged herself a prince. The way I saw in that interview is that Harry thought she was quite a catch and thought he needed to up his game the first time he met her.

[Lady Reem]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

The tabloids tried fit a round peg in a square hole. The narrative with Catherine was William saved her from a life of scrubbing dishes and mending socks.

The Middletons were already multimillionaires with trust funds. Catherine went to the very best schools in Britain.

So ‘Kate the commoner’ never really fit although that’s the narrative the tabloids were hoping for

Hard to understand why people would pit Cathy as superior to Meghan or vice versa given that both have ancestry wedged in humble beginnings which by the way is nothing to sneered at and all to be proud of, as well as distant links to royalty. Point is the Middletons are self-made, likewise Meghan. Its hard to find rational types that begrudge either side that

[royal rob]

Cathy !!!!! I never heard that before don’t think it’s necessary

[Osipi]

Don't ask me why. Maybe its because its a discussion about people "rising above their station" in life that when I heard Cathy, the first thing that pops into my head is Cathy and Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. Come to think of it, "rising above one's station" was the concurrent theme behind that story too.

People have never really fit into molds no matter how much the societies at the time wanted them to. To me, those that complain about "rising above" are those that accept that they've been put in a mold and and will stay there rather than rock the boat or make changes. From the unsinkable Molly Brown to the Middletons to Ms. Meghan Markle, those that had the guts and courage and the gumption to do something and get ahead in this world deserve everything they get from life. They've worked for it.

[Missjersey]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Don't ask me why. Maybe its because its a discussion about people "rising above their station" in life that when I heard Cathy, the first thing that pops into my head is Cathy and Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights. Come to think of it, "rising above one's station" was the concurrent theme behind that story too.

People have never really fit into molds no matter how much the societies at the time wanted them to. To me, those that complain about "rising above" are those that accept that they've been put in a mold and and will stay there rather than rock the boat or make changes. From the unsinkable Molly Brown to the Middletons to Ms. Meghan Markle, those that had the guts and courage and the gumption to do something and get ahead in this world deserve everything they get from life. They've worked for it.

Spot on Osipi! Spot on.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by Osipi

People have never really fit into molds no matter how much the societies at the time wanted them to. To me, those that complain about "rising above" are those that accept that they've been put in a mold and and will stay there rather than rock the boat or make changes. From the unsinkable Molly Brown to the Middletons to Ms. Meghan Markle, those that had the guts and courage and the gumption to do something and get ahead in this world deserve everything they get from life. They've worked for it.

I think this is a distinctly American perspective. If one is born into a class/caste system, there are social agreements one inherits, rules one abides by since birth, that get one perks in that system. If someone in the next cubicle over (in a sense) isn't abiding by those social agreements and rules, it upends all my (and everyone's) diligent and life-long 'playing by the rules'. The 'upstart' gets 'punished' socially, maybe ostracized. Either they don't succeed in getting any perks ('only themselves to blame' for any hot water they find themselves in because they drew outside the lines) or they succeed wildly and make everyone else's obedient plodding 'nothing', 'fruitless', a mockery of their staying in the lines of the game as laid down since birth, and honoring those on the other side of the lines. It's no wonder resentment boils and bubbles in such social situations.

It also goes further: there are usually 'markers' for the classes. In some cases it is actual dialects that separate the 'high' (privileged/powerful) from the low (not privileged, not powerful), that bar transgression across the socially constructed 'classes'. In others it is genetic markers developed from generations of segregation (the skin color of the untouchable caste in India).

In America something unique developed in our national myth regarding transgression of the class boundaries, though in spades there are classes and markers between classes of people (skin color, ethnicity, religion, accent). The difference lies in the view of those that 'make it' to the top of the heap: admiration for work well done, etc. Instead of there being resentment, the reaction is: I can do that, too, or my children can do that, or my family can achieve that. In doing it, working for it, one is lauded, not resented. In fact, it has become a necessity to evidence such ambition or else be deemed 'lazy'.

So I think it's a cultural difference. The British view has got a lot of history behind it. It's when I see Americans opting in to the class snobbery of another culture that I find it perplexing.

If someone British would like to pop in, please do. This is all just the way I have figured it all out. Maybe I am wrong. JMO.

[Tamara77]

I've been following this discussion and was at odds with myself in replying to it, but here goes!

The "caste" system not only applies to Britain. I will say that having been raised in the Appalachia region of the United States, and working my way out of it as a young one decades ago and coming back again as a much older adult when my husband received an excellent job offer, has been difficult. I heard as a child and a teenager "Don't get above your raisin', child". This was the typical response by elders to discourage the young ones from trying to break away from these mountains and go away to get an education or work elsewhere. I heard it often enough. I was a "snob" for trying to do so. I actually had family members turn their backs to me when I accomplished this feat. I heard "You got above your betters". Now all this is southern slang, but I wanted to point out that in some cultures elsewhere these thoughts still linger on......I don't hear it as much here today because so many young ones have fled the Appalachian coal fields in search of jobs.

But I do understand it. And now you know how old I am.

[Tamara77]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

I think this is a distinctly American perspective. If one is born into a class/caste system, there are social agreements one inherits, rules one abides by since birth, that get one perks in that system. If someone in the next cubicle over (in a sense) isn't abiding by those social agreements and rules, it upends all my (and everyone's) diligent and life-long 'playing by the rules'. The 'upstart' gets 'punished' socially, maybe ostracized. Either they don't succeed in getting any perks ('only themselves to blame' for any hot water they find themselves in because they drew outside the lines) or they succeed wildly and make everyone else's obedient plodding 'nothing', 'fruitless', a mockery of their staying in the lines of the game as laid down since birth, and honoring those on the other side of the lines. It's no wonder resentment boils and bubbles in such social situations.

It also goes further: there are usually 'markers' for the classes. In some cases it is actual dialects that separate the 'high' (privileged/powerful) from the low (not privileged, not powerful), that bar transgression across the socially constructed 'classes'. In others it is genetic markers developed from generations of segregation (the skin color of the untouchable caste in India).

In America something unique developed in our national myth regarding transgression of the class boundaries, though in spades there are classes and markers between classes of people (skin color, ethnicity, religion, accent). The difference lies in the view of those that 'make it' to the top of the heap: admiration for work well done, etc. Instead of there being resentment, the reaction is: I can do that, too, or my children can do that, or my family can achieve that. In doing it, working for it, one is lauded, not resented. In fact, it has become a necessity to evidence such ambition or else be deemed 'lazy'.

So I think it's a cultural difference. The British view has got a lot of history behind it. It's when I see Americans opting in to the class snobbery of another culture that I find it perplexing.

If someone British would like to pop in, please do. This is all just the way I have figured it all out. Maybe I am wrong. JMO.

This is an excellent explanation. Thank you!

[AlowVera]

Interesting thing is judging by the younger royals who have married across social class and also internationally they really don't care about the caste system at all. It's a brand new world, I hope the media catches up.

[AlowVera]

Here is a great article in which Meghan writes about overcoming her insecurities while auditioning.

Meghan Markle Was Once Told She ‘Wasn’t Pretty Or Thin Enough’ To Be An Actress

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Tamara77

I've been following this discussion and was at odds with myself in replying to it, but here goes!

The "caste" system not only applies to Britain. I will say that having been raised in the Appalachia region of the United States, and working my way out of it as a young one decades ago and coming back again as a much older adult when my husband received an excellent job offer, has been difficult. I heard as a child and a teenager "Don't get above your raisin', child". This was the typical response by elders to discourage the young ones from trying to break away from these mountains and go away to get an education or work elsewhere. I heard it often enough. I was a "snob" for trying to do so. I actually had family members turn their backs to me when I accomplished this feat. I heard "You got above your betters". Now all this is southern slang, but I wanted to point out that in some cultures elsewhere these thoughts still linger on......I don't hear it as much here today because so many young ones have fled the Appalachian coal fields in search of jobs.

But I do understand it. And now you know how old I am.

I agree with this. I will say one more thing that I've noticed. It's not always those are already in the higher social class that has issues with this type of thing. What I find more is people who didn't achieve the same level of success having this view. I have to wonder in that case if it's jealousy based on their own inability to move upward?

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I agree with this. I will say one more thing that I've noticed. It's not always those are already in the higher social class that has issues with this type of thing. What I find more is people who didn't achieve the same level of success having this view. I have to wonder in that case if it's jealousy based on their own inability to move upward?

But to keep in mind that in a really stiff. rigid class system, one does not advance no matter how hard one tries, hence the significant anger and resentment. I think this may apply in Britain to an extent even now (please correct me if I am wrong). The biggest marker is one's accent, which is why serious effort is made to un-learn one's accent. (I have a British friend who refuses to even demonstrate her natal Yorkshire accent, not even in fun, for me, an American friend). It's why Catherine had to learn the upper-crust accent. If she is to be honored, curtseyed to, given perks as the future Queen, she needs to exhibit the marker for high status, which includes (in spades) her accent.

There is an interesting double whammy with Catherine: she needed to improve her upper crust accent, but doing so meant that some people hector her for the attempt (silk purse/sow's ear syndrome).

[Rudolph]

Meghan’s father was out and about today. He looks really tall for some reason

Meghan Markle's reclusive dad pictured - and it is not just Prince Harry's fiancee who is a fan of De Beers - Mirror Online

[Curryong]

Wow, man buys beers. What a news story! Or is the inference by the Mirror that Tom is an alcoholic who drowns his sorrows every day about his strained relationship with his daughter, a relationship that was strained when she was eighteen, nearly two decades ago, but is now close according to family members? These tabloids are just the pits!