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

[Lady Nimue]

I don’t think she was saying her dad’s family isn’t her blood. She was just pointing out that it’s not true none of her blood family will be there as her mother’s side is also her blood family. At least they haven’t stabbed her in the back and sold her childhood memories for money yet.

Even if they haven't I don't see why they would be invited, either. If one hasn't seen family branches for decades it makes no sense (to me) to invite them to one's high profile wedding 'simply because' of a blood relationship. Makes no sense. Especially in this case when there is so much vulnerability for Meghan (and by extension the BRF).

The tabloids are making hay with this because this is exactly what people are tending to do: equating this wedding with any other family wedding, and it's not. This is an event. This is theatre related to an ancient institution to do with the groom's family.

In fact, were I to find myself in a similar situation with a relative (the relative being Meghan) I would not be assuming an invitation even if I were friendly and on good terms with the relative. I would view that high profile wedding as very much connected to my relative's life outside of my sphere of intimacy with my relative, certainly outside of my social sphere (what would I do at such a shindig?) My relative and I could get together in so many other kinds of ways to celebrate the happy union. In fact, I could see having a second set of vows and second reception just for us 'regular folks' in our home country. It would be so much more comfortable and happy and intimate and meaningful. That's me, but also my family. I could see that happening with my family.

 

[jacqui24]

Even if they haven't I don't see why they would be invited, either. If one hasn't seen family branches for decades it makes no sense (to me) to invite them to one's high profile wedding 'simply because' of a blood relationship. Makes no sense. Especially in this case when there is so much vulnerability for Meghan (and by extension the BRF).

The tabloids are making hay with this because this is exactly what people are tending to do: equating this wedding with any other family wedding, and it's not. This is an event. This is theatre related to an ancient institution to do with the groom's family.

In fact, were I to find myself in a similar situation with a relative (the relative being Meghan) I would not be assuming an invitation even if I were friendly and on good terms with the relative. I would view that high profile wedding as very much connected to my relative's life outside of my sphere of intimacy with my relative, certainly outside of my social sphere (what would I do at such a shindig?) My relative and I could get together in so many other kinds of ways to celebrate the happy union. In fact, I could see having a second set of vows and second reception just for us 'regular folks' in our home country. It would be so much more comfortable and happy and intimate and meaningful. That's me, but also my family. I could see that happening with my family.

And another point is, even say this is a family wedding, do people invite “family” that they haven’t seen or spoken to in years? I know I wouldn’t, and I would think normal folks wouldn’t either. It’s just odd.

 

[Osipi]

...
Lets put it this way. If blood relations deemed who was or was not invited or involved in a wedding, then it would have been just me at my wedding as I have no "blood" family. I had my mother, my father, my aunts and uncles and cousins that I was close to there though as close family.

 

[Lady Nimue]

And another point is, even say this is a family wedding, do people invite “family” that they haven’t seen or spoken to in years? I know I wouldn’t, and I would think normal folks wouldn’t either. It’s just odd.

It is. It's just odd. Like others have said (maybe you) Meghan already had a wedding: who was invited then? was the family outraged then? It's so clear this is all due to the high profile, but also to the fact that the tabloids are tempting family members with money and they are biting. Can we really blame them if they are being offered tens of thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands? Maybe not, though they could have said nice things and moved on. They didn't and so the mess is revealed. Poor kid. Were the tabloids not stirring this pot it would have stayed unknown. This cannot be pleasant for Meghan however much she rises above such things, nor for Harry. I think all this may have come as a shock: I don't think Meghan or Harry anticipated this. Sad.

 

[ACO]

Pretty interesting article highlighting Meghan's circle of friends. What I liked about it was how they actually mentioned her non celebrity friends. You can tell this person attempted to be somewhat accurate. Also a lot of interesting quotes from some of her more well known friends.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/04/meghan-markle-is-going-royal-can-her-friends-come-too

 

[jacqui24]

While that article has more in-depth information than a lot of the pieces I've seen. I question some of their speculation about how Meghan met and what order she met those people in. For example, it says that Cory opened up a lot of these doors for her, but she seems to be much closer to those people than he is like Markus and Jessica judging by all the available information they put up on IG. Markus has a private profile, but Jessica and Cory both have open profiles. And they speculate Meghan met Markus through Jessica, but while Jessica and Markus obviously are friends, they don't seem to be as chummy as Meghan is with both of them.

But I agree with the conclusion that her social circle isn't what you typically expect for celebrities. They are more the society type than celebrity type. And yes, I'm well aware of the Mulroneys having a public profile, but they seem to be able to walk the fine line between those two worlds.

 

[AlowVera]

Unless you are a total recluse, you are going to meet and form social relationships by the friends you have, the people you date or your job. Its not rocket science. You meet people, you click, you form social bonds. Jessica is a stylist and she is friends not only with Meghan but also other actors on Suits. They all share friends in common.

 

[Zaira]

Two articles on Meghan in the NYT: one on the finale of Suits and the importance of her role ending for the show and another one on the economics of the fashion she wears. I think the fashion one especially gives good background on the importance of both royal women (Kate, Sophie, etc) , but others too (they talk about Michelle Obama) in creating space for new brands and business for the industry. Meghan, especially, has been great about using smaller, UK brands for her pieces while still mixing in more established ones too.

I know for me, I have definitely been more invested in Meghan's fashion than other royal women. Her fashion feels more accessible to me and I was thrilled to discover Everlane because of her and now have several of their items including the Meghan Bag! I also love knowing about smaller UK brands like the Strathberry and am eagerly waiting for my bag

I also found the discussion of Meghan's role in Suits to be very interesting and the way its evolve. Well before Meghan was with Harry, my friend circle has been super into Suits and have encouraged me to watch the show. Still have not yet, but plan to soon. They are all sad to see "Mike" and "Rachel" go.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/style/meghan-markle-influencer-suits-wedding.html

The numbers began to roll in almost as soon as Ms. Markle appeared with Prince Harry at the Invictus Games in Toronto last September wearing ripped jeans from the California brand Mother and carrying an Everlane tote.

Mother saw a 200 percent increase in traffic to its website, the company said, and a 60 percent increase in Google searches compared to the same week the previous September. According to Lela Becker, the president and founder of Mother, the jeans sold out in three days and 400 people signed up on a wait list for a reorder. *There was a day when the site saw more traffic than it does on black Friday.

At Everlane, there are more than 20,000 people on a wait list for the tote she carried, according to the company. When Michael Preysman, the Everlane founder and chief executive, was asked to come up with an equivalent celebrity, he said: “Angelina Jolie.”

The white wrap coat by the Canadian company Line the Label that Ms. Markle wore for the engagement announcement sold out almost immediately, the brand said, and the website crashed. Traffic to the website of Birks, the Canadian jeweler responsible for the opal and gold stud earrings she was wearing in the same appearance, spiked 500 percent, according to Birks, and does so each time she wears a Birks piece.
Image

“We have had celebrities wear our pieces — Claire Foy, Serena Williams — but no has ever matched the magnitude of the global response,” said Eva Hartling, the vice president of Birks.

“We’ve always had coverage in Canada,” Ms. Hartling said, “but now we are in Vogue Japan, in Russia” and more.

When Ms. Markle carried a Strathberry bag for her first official appearance after the engagement, it sold out in 11 minutes, and traffic to the Scottish company’s website rose 5,000 percent. In January, she wore a pair of black jeans from Hiut Denim, a small Welsh brand, and in March the company moved to a bigger factory to fulfill demand.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/arts/television/meghan-markle-leaves-suits-finale.html

"...as Rachel, she was a subtly influential force on a pulpy legal drama that quietly had one of the most diverse casts on television. Debuting in the role of the ingénue, Ms. Markle actively repositioned Rachel out of the eye- candy slot, and by the end, her character had become the show’s moral conscience.

With the departure of Rachel and Mike, gone to start a do-gooder firm in Seattle, “Suits” not only loses a fan favorite (Ms. Markle) and one of its leads (Mr. Adams, who is also leaving the show), it also risks sacrificing the nuanced themes of class, race and corporate outsiders that their characters came to represent.

 

[MARG]

Well, that gives the lie to the snippy article I read totally dismissing the "Meghan Effect" as a mere fad and they were only talking about UK design firms.

 

[jacqui24]

Well, that gives the lie to the snippy article I read totally dismissing the "Meghan Effect" as a mere fad and they were only talking about UK design firms.

This saddens me to say, but as long as Meghan stays attractive and skinny enough, with the exception of when she's pregnant, there will be that Meghan Effect. And I hate saying this, but that's reality.

 

[Rudolph]

The ‘Meghan Effect’ is based on her engagement to Harry. The NYT and others werent devoting column inches to Meghan’s fashion prowess prior to Harry.

The Meghan effect, like the Kate effect, is more accurately the ‘Royal Effect’ imo

 

[Osipi]

I have to agree with you here, Rudolph. Meghan Markle was definitely not a household name when it came to fashion or anything else before her relationship with a Prince of the UK became known. Its the royal connection that has really thrust her into the limelight and hence the "Meghan Effect".

 

[Juliette2]

The ‘Meghan Effect’ is based her engagement to Harry. The NYT and others werent devoting column inches to Meghan’s fashion prowess prior to Harry.

The Meghan effect, like the Kate effect, is more accurately the ‘Royal Effect’ imo

I agree. Before it came out that she was dating Prince Harry 99% of the public had never heard of Miss Markle. I'm not being mean, t's just the truth.

 

[Pranter]

I'd never heard of her until the news broke of them dating. No one I knew (real life) had either.


LaRae

 

[evolvingdoors]

I agree. Before it came out that she was dating Prince Harry 99% of the public had never heard of Miss Markle. I'm not being mean, t's just the truth.

99%? That’s generous.
I’d add a dot and some more 9’s.
Suits only has a few millions viewers worldwide (at best I would say), i’d Say maybe 2/5 of the viewers actually knew Meghan name with half of them (ie 1/5) probably we’re fans and followed her online and so forth.

She was, with all due respect, at best considered a C level actress.

 

[Osipi]

I agree with this. There are many shows that I watch faithfully that have a cast of characters rather than one "star". Law and Order: SVU and NCIS among them. L&O: SVU has been on the air for 19 seasons and you could put a photo array in front of me of the actors and actresses and I'd not be able to name the majority of them. Its the same thing with Suits.

These shows with a cast of characters rather than a prime star makes it easier for the show to have flexibility and continue on seamlessly even if one character leaves the show. This is what has happened with Rachel Zane in Suits.

I wouldn't call Meghan a class "C" actress but an actress that played a role with a team because that is the way the show was set up to be. She was in integral part of the show but the show can carry on into the future without her easily.

She is garnering far more attention and publicity because she's marrying into a royal family and will have a royal role from here on out. The prime spotlight in this case is on Meghan personally for who she is and not for a role she plays.

 

[jacqui24]

I think the Meghan Effect and the Kate Effect are dubbed as such because it's connected to both the individuals and the royal. Not just royal. You simply don't see the Beatrice Effect or Eugenie Effect or Anne Effect and so on. So obviously, being royal by itself isn't enough. It gives a platform, but it's the individual on that platform that would make the difference.

 

[Curryong]

At least Meghan was known as an actress to a few million people before the engagement. And you could say the same (about the Royal effect) for virtually everyone who seriously dates/becomes engaged to a senior Royal, couldn't you, whatever their profession, (if they had one before marriage?)

Who knew about Diana, Kate, Maxima, Mary, Mathilde etc before they became engaged to royals? The only exception to that would have been Grace Kelly, and more recently, within Spain, Letizia. The only one who has had worldwide fame to marry a Royal was Kelly.

 

[AlowVera]

I knew who Meghan was, followed her on social media, knew about the UN speech, watched her show occasionally and read some of her articles. I have several online friends who watched Suits and shipped Ross and Rachel.

Today its not about just being famous or on the A list but its also about your social media reach and influence. There are 500 shows in production. Not every actor is going to have name recognition but they may have social media influence.

Also another thing that matters are the demographics of the audience. Suits may not have 20 million viewers they may have 4 million viewers who are a certain age group or economic level. The show has been on for 7 years so its safe to say it delivers the audience that the network desires.

 

[ACO]

I knew who Meghan was as I was familar with the show "Suits" though I was not a loyal watcher by any means. I seen a few episodes here and there because I love Gina Torres. That said, the show has a strong following and is quite successful. There are many shows like that where you might not be a household name but within that community you are quite known. That was her. No denial her star level went through the roof with the connection to Harry, but she was hardly unknown.

I agree that Kate and Meghan Effects are due to royalty but also due to who they are connected to and the interest. As pointed out we don't see Beatrice and Sophie selling out clothing. So there is more to it.

 

[Osipi]

There is hardly anyone in the British royal family though that has garnered so much instant buzz and attention as when Beatrice stepped out in *that* hat. That was a real doozy but definitely not a "Beatrice Effect".

Anyways...back to Meghan.

 

[Curbside]

The Meghan and Kate effects have to do with the fantasy of being desirable enough to attract two extremely eligible men, in addition to the styles of these two women.

If they dressed like Beatrice and Eugenie, there would be no effect.

 

[Osipi]

One thing for sure is that *any* woman that is highlighted to the extent that Meghan is now will bring to attention of millions a style, a fashion, a way of doing one's hair or even how to hide a bulging waistline. People see something they like and get the bright idea that its exactly what they need. This is why the "effect" has things flying off the shelves within minutes.

Why go trekking through a gazillion stores to find something you like when it pops up in a photograph right before your eyes?

 

[Zaira]

I agree ACO. If Meghan's fashion didn't connect to people's taste than there would no effect so its about way more than just marrying a royal dude. Meghan's fashion is connecting with people and people are also generally interested in her as a person. I can honestly say as someone who is a big fan of Harry that if he had married Cressida or Chelsy, I wouldn't have been very interested in them as people because they didn't intrigue me the way Meghan and her experience does. Of course, being with Harry has launched Meghan into the stratosphere, but IMO people connect with who Meghan is and what she represents.

And Meghan was certainly known in her own right. She had over 1 million followers on Social Media, had brand endorsements and if you listen to that agent (who we should take with a dash of salt), she was about to sign for more endorsements. She wasn't A-List, but she had a cache coming into her engagement few other royals have had.

 

[Curbside]

I think Meghan having had a highly visible career in some ways made her more accessible. If you're intrigued by Meghan and Harry's relationship, you can go find some of the content she's created over the years--her TV show, films, blog, social media, etc.

 

[Missjersey]

I'd never heard of her until the news broke of them dating. No one I knew (real life) had either.


LaRae

Neither did I.

 

[Curbside]

I had watched a couple seasons of Suits, but I didn't know her specifically. Suits is not a TV show one has to watch every moment of to get the gist of what's going on.

 

[Lady Nimue]

She was, with all due respect, at best considered a C level actress.

Really? Who considered her so? It's a serious question. Can you say who's doing this evaluation?

Firstly, though, I am only aware of A-Listers (which has to do with bankability), and all the rest follow. You may be confusing A-Lister with the phrase B-Movie (which again is rooted in monetary issues). A B-star (if there is such a thing ) might be associated with B-Movies, not the tent-pole film star, the A-Lister, the guaranteed box office draw. There are very few of the latter, like Johnny Depp or Meryl Streep or Brad Pitt, and even then success is not always guaranteed.

A-Listers can star in B-Movies and do all the time but that then does not make them B actors, as in quality or calibre of acting. Excellent actors routinely do bread-and-butter gigs in all types of television and film, and one has to start somewhere. The breakthrough role is of legend, and doesn't always happen.

Bottom line, I have never heard of C-Actors. If you are trying to dismiss Meghan as a no-talent actress, you could just say it. I'm not sure that's what you are suggesting but if you are ascribing to her failure and lack of talent because she is not an A-Lister, you are in error imo. (The percentage of A-Listers in the business is minuscule, and is always shifting). With such reasoning you have effectively condemned the vast sea of actors to your so-named C-Actor status just because they are not tent-pole film actors. Urf!

Just my 2 cents.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I would definitely put Meghan as a C List or even D List actress; essentially an actress who has a job but isn't making huge waves isn't being noticed by the mass amount of media outlets and 98.8% of the population wouldn't know who she was if she hadn't hit the stratosphere because of her boyfriend. It's not an insult to call Meghan C List, it's just what is.

 

[Denville]

Seems like it Xenia. I'd never heard of her till she was dating Harry. She's had fairly steady work, but she' wasn't famous. Not htat being "A List" means you're necessarily a great actor.. because it often has more to do with looks and determination.. and luck.. Meghan may well have been a good actress technically but she simply had not become a star... However I'm guessing she's a competent but far from brilliant actress... and she was employed which in a job like acting, is doing pretty well... But she wasn't famous....