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

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I still think there is quite a distance from her saying her acting working made it possible to do her philanthropic work to she's only an actress as a way to fund her philanthropic work. One is is gives her the opportunity, whether financially or the opportunity or both, to do this work. The other saying that's just a means to an end.

I doubt she had to force herself to go to work so no not a means to and end necessarily however there was an obvious point to be made that the priority to her was the charity work and this is how she funded it.


LaRae

Further she made it pretty clear during the engagement interview that she had ticked that box. I don't think she had a driving passion to continue being an actress and I got the impression she was already looking at other options.


LaRae

[Osipi]

From everything I've seen and have learned about Meghan, I don't think she did anything in her life by half measures. She would give her best to whatever she was doing and that includes her acting career and her philanthropic work. If she made a commitment to something, she committed herself to it.

That's quite an attractive attitude to have going into royal work and it will serve her well.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Osipi

From everything I've seen and have learned about Meghan, I don't think she did anything in her life by half measures. She would give her best to whatever she was doing and that includes her acting career and her philanthropic work. If she made a commitment to something, she committed herself to it.

That's quite an attractive attitude to have going into royal work and it will serve her well.

One of the most admirable traits she has exhibited, in my opinion. It will definitely serve her well as Harry's wife: the willingness to work (very, very) hard is the only way to survive a lifetime as a working royal.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I think this discussion might have veered off a bit, but the original Meghan Effect we were discussing was her clothes flying off the shelves as soon as she's seen in them. I don't think that's happening for Chelsey or Cressida. I don't know if it did before as I didn't follow them.

But Harry wasn't actually engaged to either of them, so there is that to consider.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

But Harry wasn't actually engaged to either of them, so there is that to consider.

They weren't engaged yet when "The Meghan Effect" started either. They have talked a lot about how a lot of her clothing she was seen in during their dating period sold out especially the stuff from the Invictus Games.

Also I do think the element of "different" with Meghan plays a massive part. Andrew Morton was on "The View" here in America and he flat out said he wouldn't be on this massive press tour if he was writing about, lets say, Cressida. We would be curious, of course, but no denial it was upped by the interest globally.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by ACO

They weren't engaged yet when "The Meghan Effect" started either. They have talked a lot about how a lot of her clothing she was seen in during their dating period sold out especially the stuff from the Invictus Games.

Also I do think the element of "different" with Meghan plays a massive part. Andrew Morton was on "The View" here in America and he flat out said he wouldn't be on this massive press tour if he was writing about, lets say, Cressida. We would be curious, of course, but no denial it was upped by the interest globally.

The clip you mention is on YouTube and copied below. The specific quote you talked about starts at 3:06 for anyone that's interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGlwCWLD9bk

[AlowVera]

Originally Posted by Osipi

From everything I've seen and have learned about Meghan, I don't think she did anything in her life by half measures. She would give her best to whatever she was doing and that includes her acting career and her philanthropic work. If she made a commitment to something, she committed herself to it.

That's quite an attractive attitude to have going into royal work and it will serve her well.

We can see that by how she has done over 20 engagements while planning a wedding, immigrating to a new country, dealing with a hostile UK press, dealing with grifting half siblings, converting to the COE, building relationships with the new inlaws. Meeting privately with possible new charities. She has done quite a lot in this short period of time.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

We can see that by how she has done over 20 engagements while planning a wedding, immigrating to a new country, dealing with a hostile UK press, dealing with grifting half siblings, converting to the COE, building relationships with the new inlaws. Meeting privately with possible new charities. She has done quite a lot in this short period of time.

I tell ya if the "Meghan Effect" happened to be that they found a way to bottle her energies, I'd be first in line to buy it by the cases.

[Cocoasneeze]

Many of the posters here didn't know about Meghan before she met Harry, but that doesn't take away from the fact, that she was an actress with over 1 million followers on instagram, had a very successful clothing line and an equally successful lifestyle blog, which brought her a really nice income. That's more than I assume either of Harry's exes have going on even after their relationships with Harry. IMHO the Meghan effect is largely happening because of her own qualities, not just because of her engagement with Harry. I don't think the same would be happening had he proposed to any other woman.

[Mirabel]

Originally Posted by Cocoasneeze

IMHO the Meghan effect is largely happening because of her own qualities, not just because of her engagement with Harry. I don't think the same would be happening had he proposed to any other woman.

But did it happen before she met Harry?
Not to my knowledge, but I really wasn't aware of her before that, so I can't say for sure.

But I do think the Meghan Effect only began once she and Harry began making public appearances together. JMO.

[ACO]

Meghan being an American definitely gives her a boost but I also believe she has a lot more interest for a lot of other obviously aspects as well.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

But did it happen before she met Harry?
Not to my knowledge, but I really wasn't aware of her before that, so I can't say for sure.

But I do think the Meghan Effect only began once she and Harry began making public appearances together. JMO.

No one is denying that she became much more known after her and Harry became public knowledge, but she was already very successful with Tig and her clothing line even before meeting Harry. So she was very successful in that regard already on her own. Before Harry.

[Pranter]

There is no American royal hysteria for Meghan. Outside the media reacting the average person has no clue nor do they care about Meghan marrying Harry.


LaRae

[Curbside]

I wouldn't say there is hysteria. I mean, people will get up early to watch the wedding, and there are a couple of Meghan fashion blogs, but I don't see tons of stories on her in the U.S.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Curbside

I wouldn't say there is hysteria. I mean, people will get up early to watch the wedding, and there are a couple of Meghan fashion blogs, but I don't see tons of stories on her in the U.S.

Her name has gained a lot of traction since the engagement and lots of folks will get up to watch the wedding.

Many Americans don’t like talking about their interests in the British Royal Family, but whenever The Queen or young royals come to visit the US, people come out in very deep crowds to greet them. The Queen’s 2007 State Visit was massive.

Royal interest is very much played down here.

[Pranter]

Right most folks (U.S.) look at you askance when you mention you are interested in the Royals ...think you are crazy to want to get up and watch the wedding etc.




LaRae

[AlowVera]

She has had several covers of People magazine, US weekly, InStyle etc. Good Morning America, Today Show all have special weekly Royal Wedding segments. ENews also has regular Royal Wedding segments, ET news also has royal wedding segments. American coverage is mainly light and fluffy, we don't really care about her ex hubby or that strange ex friend or the sellout half siblings We want the wedding details like the dress or the fashion.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by AlowVera

She has had several covers of People magazine, US weekly, InStyle etc. Good Morning America, Today Show all have special weekly Royal Wedding segments. ENews also has regular Royal Wedding segments, ET news also has royal wedding segments. American coverage is mainly light and fluffy, we don't really care about her ex hubby or that strange ex friend or the sellout half siblings We want the wedding details like the dress or the fashion.

I think Simon Perry has said that they did back to back covers for Meghan on People late last year. He said that has never been done for anyone before. They did the engagement cover, which sold very well. Then did another one for the week after, and to their surprise, it sold even better than the engagement copy.

[Royal Suitor]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I have to disagree.
Chelsy Davy was unknown, but her past relationship with Harry guarantees her press coverage now, even though it is years since they parted.

Cressida Bonas was a wannabe actress; being with Harry got her publicity, followed by job offers. She's constantly photographed leaving the theater.

I honestly believe the impact would be the same, no matter who Harry was marrying.

Give anyone that platform and there's interest. But, I think the level of interest is amplified because of who Meghan is. That's why I referenced both pieces of the equation. What Meghan brings vs. Chelsy/Cressida or someone of that ilk...

-More international interest because she's American and spent so many years living in Canada
-More interest from people of color who may not have traditionally followed the BRF because she's biracial
-Her own following as an actress from TV fans and social media
-A catalog of interviews, articles, pictures, etc. from her career/The Tig that give insight into her life and her character. Typically, you don't have this much 1st person information about a royal-to-be pre-marriage.

So sure, if you dropped in another woman with Meghan's identical profile you might get the same effect. OK...

Hysteria is an extreme stretch but let's not pretend there's not some mainstream interest. Jacqui to be specific People magazine has done 6 cover stories on H&M since the engagement including 2 back-to-back. You don't do that many stories if it's not generating sales. The issue after the engagement issue was the biggest seller they had in all of 2017. U.S. entertainment/fashion magazines and talk shows have covered the engagement as actively as the British media, but it's only as the wedding has gotten closer that more traditional outlets have picked up the story.

[Curbside]

Me neither.

I think Americans will watch the wedding, follow her fashion, etc., but I wouldn't call it hysteria. There may be more interest in Meghan than Kate, which can be attributed to Meghan being American and the novelty factor around that.

Originally Posted by Royal Suitor

Hysteria is an extreme stretch but let's not pretend there's not some mainstream interest. Jacqui to be specific People magazine has done 6 cover stories on H&M since the engagement including 2 back-to-back. You don't do that many stories if it's not generating sales. The issue after the engagement issue was the biggest seller they had in all of 2017. U.S. entertainment/fashion magazines and talk shows have covered the engagement as actively as the British media, but it's only as the wedding has gotten closer that more traditional outlets have picked up the story.

I agree with this. On CNN.com, you might have seen a small item on the first page, and that's about it. She's been mentioned on a couple of talk shows but honestly, Trump sort of swallows up the most media attention for traditional news outlets.