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

[jacqui24]

I think people are giving this too much credit. Samantha has proved herself to be unreliable and volatile at best. If people choose to believe her knowing what she’s said in the past, that’s on them and they would’ve believed the worst about Meghan regardless. The papers will run out of patience with her, in fact some outlets already have as she has turned around and bashed them too. She’ll pop up to comment once in awhile. So be it. I would say don’t engaged publicly or try to pay her off. If she writes a book and tries to publish it. Check for facts and then if it’s factually incorrect, sue. Injunctions are a wonderful thing. That’s the best way to deal with her.

a chatty sister of a royal duchess that will never be queen isn’t going to bring down the monarchy. It’s going to depend on the work the royal family produces. If something like this can bring down the monarchy, then clearly there were bigger problems that would’ve brought it down regardless. Members of the BRF has had bigger embarassments that has actually been caused by them and had credibility behind it. Samantha will hang herself with enough rope.

Originally Posted by Skippy

Is this Samantha *that* jealous?

Short answer? Yes.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

I simply don't see how she can be forced to stop talking easily.

I agree.

Paying her off seems like a really bad idea. And as far as an agreement to not talk anymore for the money, if she broke it I don't really see the royal family taking her to court.

Since she doesn't seem very reasonable, I don't see talking to her and appealing to her better nature as an option either.

Originally Posted by Gaudete

It isn’t Meghan’s fault but it’s something that will have to be dealt with soon to avoid headlines like this becoming a regular occurrence.

Short of MI6 and a covert operation? How?

[Gaudete]

Samantha won't bring down the monarchy. But tolerating celebrity style feuds will undermine the institution and it'll face enough of that in parliament in the coming years if the worst happens. As I said before, the monarchy will need to remain blemish free and absolutely totally united without a trace of gossip or scandal if it wants to retain the good will of the voters.

Short of MI6 and a covert operation? How?

I agree with you. It's a very very difficult situation and one I don't have a solution for. But someone needs to come up with one and quick. We're all operating on the assumption that the worst Samantha has on her half sister is tittle tattle. What if we're wrong?

[Denville]

Not sure about not taking her to court. I think that the RF can be very ruthless when someone is "persona non grata".
(nad no, I'm not talking about Black Ops).
The trouble is that Samantha isn't an Ex Royal, who is based in Britan and could problaby be pushed and paid into "good behaviour".. SHe is based in the US, she seems diffuclt and not stable.. it might be harder to enforce her to stop saying things.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Denville

Not sure about not taking her to court. I think that the RF can be very ruthless when someone is "persona non grata".
(nad no, I'm not talking about Black Ops).
The trouble is that Samantha isn't an Ex Royal, who is based in Britan and could problaby be pushed and paid into "good behaviour".. SHe is based in the US, she seems diffuclt and not stable.. it might be harder to enforce her to stop saying things.

I doubt her book will ever get published, if she somehow tries to, there are actually more legal options. And of course if she ever changes her story again to her tune when this relationship came out, there are ways to deal with her in court over long term as I’m sure she’ll start making up facts.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Meghan said this in a video I saw on Youtube. I believe she mentioned it in one of the Suits promo videos, so I wouldn't be able to locate it right off the bat. But she did explain about it being funny that Rachel was actually her first name and the name of her Suits character. I believe she said something about always being called Meghan at home, but that she tended to be called Rachel in school sometimes since it is her first name. ETA: Oh I see that @ACO found a video of Meghan speaking about her first name and the confusion on legal documents. I've seen that one. It could be the one I remember, or there's possibly another one too where she makes reference to her first name. I wonder why Meghan didn't simply change her name to Meghan Rachel Markle.

Thanks for the explanation. In all interviews I've seen Meghan states that Rachel is her first name but that she always went by Meghan. So, I'll take her at her word that she never went by Rachel (neither at home nor at school) - except for her character in Suits of course

Why would Meghan change her name if everything has worked out fine? The name she uses is even one of her legal names (so rather straight-forward and easy to explain if needed) which isn't the case for many of my family members and none of them considered changing their name just because some people you don't know/meet for the first time might be confused (however, officially changing your name might be something that is more common among Americans than under the Dutch as many American women go through the same process for their last name when getting married (and even given up middle names), so it might not be seen as a big deal in the US). And from her wedding day on she will most likely be 'the Duchess of X' in all official communication, so problem solved

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Denville

Older people are the monarchy's supporters, in general. But younger people are more indifferent not more tolerant. And they may just not take any interest in the RF, on the lines of "they're no btetter than the rest of us, lets get rid of them."

You're seeing that already. There's alot of animosity being built up and encouraged here against anyone that has private wealth or any privilege at all. Harsh scrutiny is no longer the personal domain of the tabloids. Social media leads the way and if there's any trace of the Royal Family being, as you put it, "no better than the rest of us", then those with a republican agenda will absolutely channel into that and use it.

Originally Posted by Denville

Older people are the monarchy's supporters, in general. But younger people are more indifferent not more tolerant. And they may just not take any interest in the RF, on the lines of "they're no btetter than the rest of us, lets get rid of them."

That’s the work that the younger generation of royals will have to do. People were all young at one point. A lot of the older people grew up with the Queen and saw her as Queen from a young age, and that’s part of the loyalty to monarchy now because of their respect for her over the years. Indifference from the younger generation is the biggest problem, and it is the younger royals that will have to engage them and build a base there for the future of monarchy.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That’s the work that the younger generation of royals will have to do. People were all young at one point. A lot of the older people grew up with the Queen and saw her as Queen from a young age, and that’s part of the loyalty to monarchy now because of their respect for her over the years. Indifference from the younger generation is the biggest problem, and it is the younger royals that will have to engage them and build a base there for the future of monarchy.

That's what Denville and I are saying (I think, I don't want to talk for Denville). If the younger royals have to engage young people and secure the future, they may find it difficult if they're constantly defending themselves from scandal at the same time as defending themselves from political opposition.

Originally Posted by Pranter

The monarchy isn't going anywhere unless the majority of the folks under said monarchy desire it, regardless what political powers are in charge or what they want.

There's always going to be people who don't like what the monarchy does because they don't like the monarchy. Then there are the ignorant folks who have no idea how their country is run (I find it kinda surprising too when I see folks that live in the UK make comments about how the BRF live off taxpayer money ..I mean they have no clue, they think their taxes bought Meghan's dress).

So of course you have to give part of an ear to what is being said but I don't think any government should rely on polls to govern.


LaRae

This is off topic of course (is there a thread for this discussion? Perhaps these posts can be moved there?) but what you're saying is very much the staple view of a year or two ago. Things have changed quite dramatically since. Having no clue doesn't mean they'll suddenly become educated as and when reforms are put forward. And if things change next year here in the UK, they absolutely will be put forward. I agree with you that a government should rely on polls to govern, they should rely on principle. But the principle of the would-be government is now, at least unofficially, to abolish the monarchy or to at least strip it of everything it has so that it ceases to have any relevance at all.

Hmmm I don't know...maybe we should start one somewhere in the BRF section...Moderator can you assist with this?


LaRae

You see the part where it states that Samantha is a mental health counselor? Weird... really weird.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

That's what Denville and I are saying (I think, I don't want to talk for Denville). If the younger royals have to engage young people and secure the future, they may find it difficult if they're constantly defending themselves from scandal at the same time as defending themselves from political opposition.

Samantha Markle’s comments are hardly a scandal at this point. It’s an annoyance, not a scandal.

[Gaudete]

At the moment yes. I’m talking about the future. What if she reveals things we had no idea about that would be scandals? What if ex boyfriends or colleagues decide to open up to the press? What if her dual citizenship causes issues financially? These are questions we’re seemingly being discouraged from asking but they must be asked and dealt with at some point.

For the record, I like Meghan and I think she’ll be a great addition to the family. But all this “it’s small fry, don’t even think on it” sounds to me like famous last words. I would feel more comfortable if this was being taken a little more seriously.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Samantha Markle’s comments are hardly a scandal at this point. It’s an annoyance, not a scandal.

I agree, Samantha talking isn't a scandal. She has nothing else to say, she simply has no info, nothing to sell. If she starts making up scandalous stories, I can see lawyers getting involved. But right now, she is just a loud mouth shouting a lot, and nobody really listening.

[Gaudete]

I think you need to look at the comments sections on a selection of British newspapers. People are listening. You also don’t know what else she has to say. To me, it’s unwise to be so dismissive.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

At the moment yes. I’m talking about the future. What if she reveals things we had no idea about that would be scandals? What if ex boyfriends or colleagues decide to open up to the press? What if her dual citizenship causes issues financially? These are questions we’re seemingly being discouraged from asking but they must be asked and dealt with at some point.

For the record, I like Meghan and I think she’ll be a great addition to the family. But all this “it’s small fry, don’t even think on it” sounds to me like famous last words. I would feel more comfortable if this was being taken a little more seriously.

I’m pretty sure if Samantha Markle has any information, she’d release it by now. She’s not the type that’s smart enough to save something for a while rainy day judging her actions so far. Her colleagues have proven to be protective of her. In fact, at some point, an article was done with an industry insider that doesn’t really know Meghan, but knows a lot of people in the industry. And honestly, it’s a small world, reputations get around. They were doing an assessment of Meghan’s options should this not work out. That was before the engagement obviously, but what was said is that she’s genuinely liked by people in the industry, and good luck trying to get her costars to open up about her as they are fiercely protective of her. As they are no longer working together, I can’t see how there could be created in the future. As for ex-boyfriend, he’s been harassed and bribed already. He’s not talking. Quite frankly, that reflects on him as a person. Of course, anyone can change, but you can’t predict something like this. What can anyone do about it?

And financial difficulties because of taxes, she’ll likely renounce if it begins to cause a problem once she’s a British citizen. Honestly, it’s something they are aware of going in. So if that causes financial problems, that’s bad planning on their part. If that becomes a problem, that’s their own fault and nothing to do with Samantha Markle. I don’t think it’s a question. That’s discouraged from asking, it’s just a problem that hasn’t become a problem, so there is nothing to talk about. If people would like to worry about it even when it’s not a problem, then they can’t tweetle their thins about it, but there really isn’t any additional facts to talk about here.

[Somebody]

Meghan knows what is in her past, so she is in a perfect position to judge whether Samantha could be a threat. So far the best way seems to ignore her. If they would be busy defending all the time that would indeed be bad for the monarchy. Ignoring not so much and we've seen that the royal family is willing to take action if truly needed, so no reason to blow this out of proportion.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I think you need to look at the comments sections on a selection of British newspapers. People are listening. You also don’t know what else she has to say. To me, it’s unwise to be so dismissive.

Honestly, they are a minor part of the public. To take it as more than what it is is blowing it out of proportion. And the people that normally would go look at these articles and bother to comment are typically looking to discount her anyways. Vast majority of the public aren’t paying as much attention to this as we are. Look, if there are actually facts that are coming out, fine it could be a problem. But there simply aren’t facts right now.

[Gaudete]

I truly hope you're all correct in your predictions that none of this will be a serious issue in the future. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't a minor issue today. The majority of comments out there online are not favourable and I hope this can be overcome quickly to remedy that.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I think you need to look at the comments sections on a selection of British newspapers. People are listening. You also don’t know what else she has to say. To me, it’s unwise to be so dismissive.

Comments section in which papers? The tabloids? Daily mail?

None of us know about Meghan's past, and what Samantha might know, Meghan does, and she just might have the best advisors helping her. They know the best action to take, if any, and right now they see no action taken as the best solution.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Honestly, they are a minor part of the public. To take it as more than what it is is blowing it out of proportion. And the people that normally would go look at these articles and bother to comment are typically looking to discount her anyways. Vast majority of the public aren’t paying as much attention to this as we are. Look, if there are actually facts that are coming out, fine it could be a problem. But if things like paradise papers hasn’t done the monarchy in, a chatty half sibling who hasn’t seen or spoken to her in 10 years is hardly an issue.

How minor are they? Guardian readers who are commenting are tax payers. Daily Mail readers who are commenting are tax payers. Sun readers who are commenting are tax payers. As for those who aren't commenting online? They will be in the privacy of their own homes. I hope they're as welcoming and forgiving as you're stating they are but you underestimate that indicator of British opinion. I tend not to read articles themselves unless they interest me but I do try to gauge a general opinion from social media, comments on newspapers online etc. As much as I want this to work and as much as I hope Meghan's family or background won't be a problem, I get the distinct feeling that there's a view that can't simply be written off that there's issues here that concern people. It'll take alot of work to make that change and Samantha won't help that process along.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

At the moment yes. I’m talking about the future. What if she reveals things we had no idea about that would be scandals? What if ex boyfriends or colleagues decide to open up to the press? What if her dual citizenship causes issues financially? These are questions we’re seemingly being discouraged from asking but they must be asked and dealt with at some point.

For the record, I like Meghan and I think she’ll be a great addition to the family. But all this “it’s small fry, don’t even think on it” sounds to me like famous last words. I would feel more comfortable if this was being taken a little more seriously.

Are you really this concerned that a loose liped individual is going to bring down the monarchy?

With the exception of her citizenship, any one of these scenarios you mention could happen to any person who marries into the royal family, or for that matter any person who is in the royal family. What if one of Harry’s exes wants to make some quick cash? What if one of William’s colleagues does?

The BRF has survived people talking to the press before. It survived Kate’s Uncle Garry. It survived Charles Spencer. It survived Sarah Ferguson. It survived James Hewitt. Heck, it survived Diana, and it survived Camillagate. It isn’t going to be taken down by Meghan Markle’s half sister (who she hasn’t spoken to in years) or a few of her old friends.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Ish

Are you really this concerned that a loose liped individual is going to bring down the monarchy?

With the exception of her citizenship, any one of these scenarios you mention could happen to any person who marries into the royal family, or for that matter any person who is in the royal family. What if one of Harry’s exes wants to make some quick cash? What if one of William’s colleagues does?

The BRF has survived people talking to the press before. It survived Kate’s Uncle Garry. It survived Charles Spencer. It survived Sarah Ferguson. It survived James Hewitt. Heck, it survived Diana, and it survived Camillagate. It isn’t going to be taken down by Meghan Markle’s half sister (who she hasn’t spoken to in years) or a few of her old friends.

If you read my posts in full, you'll see that I've stated several times that I don't believe that Samantha will bring down the monarchy with this. What I said was, this could be a problem in the future that will further undermine an institution that is far likely to come under attack more and more in the future in a much more 'official way' than it was before. The country is different now. There's potential for huge major changes that would never have been thought possible when Diana was alive or even when Camilla married into the family. What I'm saying is (again, please don't misquote me because I've made this clear from the start), the monarchy cannot risk any taint or blemish. No gossip, no scandal. 2018 is a precarious year in the UK. Anything that can be used, will be used and whilst that's uncomfortable for some to accept that's the situation we're now in. I stress once again, I don't think Samantha can bring down the institution and I think Meghan will be a great addition to the family. But times are changing. They're also dangerous. The monarchy has just got back on it's feet and has managed to weather a series of storms. When it'll find itself the focus of attacks on a regular basis moving forward, every minor issue that can be avoided must be avoided if it wants to retain that.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

How minor are they? Guardian readers who are commenting are voters and tax payers. Daily Mail readers who are commenting are voters and tax payers. Sun readers who are commenting are voters and tax payers. As for those who aren't commenting online? They will be in the privacy of their own homes. I hope they're as welcoming and forgiving as you're stating they are but you underestimate that indicator of British opinion. I tend not to read articles themselves unless they interest me but I do try to gauge a general opinion from social media, comments on newspapers online etc. Thus far, I predicted Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. As much as I want this to work and as much as I hope Meghan's family or background won't be a problem, I get the distinct feeling that there's a view that can't simply be written off that there's issues here that concern people. It'll take alot of work to make that change and Samantha won't help that process along.

Honestly, you are comparing apples to oranges her. Guardian is a Republican leaning paper to begin with and the DF is the DF. Their commenters aren’t even all British citizens. And if we are going to worry about future problems that doesn’t yet exist, let’s worry about what if the world ends tomorrow. See how ridiculous that sounds? There is a limit to being prepared for a possible scandal before it becomes paranoia.

And there will always be people who likes he monarchy and who doesn’t. I doubt loose lips from an estranged family member of one member will love the needle much either way.