The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 1: September-December 2020

[Tatiana Maria]

This is an interesting debate. How do other royal families do this? Maybe we should have a thread on royal ethics?

I wonder if there's a British/non British difference here?

To the best of my knowledge, royals who hold jobs outside of the monarchy in the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Spain and Luxembourg do not use their royal titles professionally. In Denmark, however, Prince Nikolai does use his royal title for his modeling work.

We might take further discussion to this thread:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/careers-for-the-royals-2834-7.html

 

[Alison H]

I think Beatrice goes as "Beatrice York". And didn't Sophie still go as "Sophie Rhys-Jones" when she was running her PR company?

 

[Pranter]

All of a sudden, there are articles "Harry would have left the Royal family w/o Meghan" what a load of crock? I mean he never looked unhappy before! Why would he had left? It's sad, his life will now be behind a boring podcast.

He has left his friends, his family and the only home he ever known for a woman he hasn't even know for 5 years. Didn't they meet in 2016, married in 2018? Very sad.

Because he publicly (links have been posted before here) stated he thought about leaving more than once (more than one interview).

America is not Mars. With Zoom and phones, planes etc you can easily stay in touch with friends and family.

He was in the military for years not living at home. I think a grown man in his 30s can handle moving away ...men all over the world do this for jobs and relationships and no one thinks anything about it.

LaRae

 

[Curryong]

I knew after their podcast that they would find themselves in hot water.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...illions-Sussexes-small-amounts-musicians.html

Why are Harry and Meghan the ones 'in hot water' when Shaw is quite clearly blasting Spotify for paying the Sussexes (and it should be pointed out, countless other people in the public eye, like the Obamas) millions, and musicians hardly anything?

Naturally the Fail would leap on these remarks. Anything negative with regard to the Sussexes and that tabloid is onto it like a rat up a drainpipe. Of course it is inherently unfair. However so are many other things in life and the Sussexes, and all the others Spotify pay big money to in their contracts, are not responsible for this business's arrangements with others they employ.

 

[QueenMathilde]

As to the discussion upthread about Harry using the Mountbatton-Windsor name I remember when he was in the military he was "Harry Wales".

 

[Alison H]

To be fair, neither Sandie Shaw nor the Mail were criticising Harry and Meghan directly - they were saying, as the article points out, that Spotify pays most of the artists whose music it streams next to nothing, to the extent that the Government is looking into the streaming industry. No-one's blaming Harry and Meghan for this. It just doesn't look very good, when the investigation was set up only a couple of months ago. And, again to be fair, it's not just Spotify: it's all the other streaming services.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think Beatrice goes as "Beatrice York".

As to the discussion upthread about Harry using the Mountbatton-Windsor name I remember when he was in the military he was "Harry Wales".

Yes, as that is the ordinary practice for British royalty and peers. I will repost my explanation from an old thread:


The traditional ways of the British royal family and the British peerage make a distinction between social and legal use.

When a surname is required in daily life, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their territorial designation as their surname. The then Prince William of Wales used William Wales at school and in the military.

When a surname is required in official paperwork, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their family name as their surname. Princess Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register. Surnames in official paperwork are, in fact, rarely required for peers and royals, but when required, their family name is their official name.


And a poster here compiled a list of present day British peers who apparently follow this norm: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...s-and-titles-258-post2220180.html#post2220180


For those interested in the matter, there are dedicated threads for British titles and for the surname(s) of the British royal family:

Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname
Questions about British Styles and Titles

 

[Somebody]

As to the discussion upthread about Harry using the Mountbatton-Windsor name I remember when he was in the military he was "Harry Wales".

Now he has his own peerage it would no longer make sense to use 'Wales' as informal surname. Sussex would now be the logical equivalent.

 

[Curryong]

Yes peers generally use their territorial designation. Harry has apparently never used Mountbatten-Windsor to sign anything. He and William aways tended to sign things using their Christian names.

 

[TLLK]

(I hope that this is the appropriate thread as many of the others in the Sussex forum are now locked.)


Back in 2012 Meghan Markle appeared in Richard Marx's Christmas video with two of her "Suits" cast members and a few other celebrities. You can spot her around minute 2:12.



https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/ent...r-studded-2012-christmas-music-video/2638487/

In the video for the single, titled "Christmas Spirit," Markle wears a red Santa hat while sitting at a table and lip-syncing the song with her "Suits" co-stars Rick Hoffman and Sarah Rafferty. According to The Sun, Marx, who rose to fame in the '80s, is friends with Hoffman and asked him to make an appearance in the video, and the actor then persuaded the actresses to join him.

 

[AC21091968]

YouGov did a poll on how interested are the surveyed British public on Harry & Meghan's Spotify podcasts. This was conducted on 17th December with 5775 British adults being asked with the question "Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan have announced that they have signed a multi-year deal with Spotify to host and produce exclusive podcasts. How interested are you, if at all, in listening to this?"

The overall response percentages are

I am very interested: 2%
I am fairly interested: 5%
I am not very interested: 12%
I am not interested at all: 77%
Don’t know: 4%​

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...edium=daily_questions&utm_campaign=question_1

Across all the categories (Region, gender, politics, age and social grade), the response have been quite consistent. Yes, there might be some variability, but I don't think there is one particular group (i.e. Rest of South, Conservative voter, aged 65+) that is significantly pulling up or down on the overall percentage.

Based on this results, it would not surprise me if Harry & Meghan's podcast are less likely to be targeting British audiences

 

[RandyDrx]

Why are Harry and Meghan the ones 'in hot water' when Shaw is quite clearly blasting Spotify for paying the Sussexes (and it should be pointed out, countless other people in the public eye, like the Obamas) millions, and musicians hardly anything?

Naturally the Fail would leap on these remarks. Anything negative with regard to the Sussexes and that tabloid is onto it like a rat up a drainpipe. Of course it is inherently unfair. However so are many other things in life and the Sussexes, and all the others Spotify pay big money to in their contracts, are not responsible for this business's arrangements with others they employ.

Well, it was painfully obvious that the reason why they got paid millions is because of their royal titles, can you imagine them getting that much money if they were simply Harry and Meghan Smith? I think they should follow the example of the York girls, I remember they were known simply as Beatrice York and Eugenie York while they were working.

 

[Countessmeout]

Well, it was painfully obvious that the reason why they got paid millions is because of their royal titles, can you imagine them getting that much money if they were simply Harry and Meghan Smith? I think they should follow the example of the York girls, I remember they were known simply as Beatrice York and Eugenie York while they were working.

Like the York girls Harry and Meghan do use their names for business. They can't use their titles.

People don't have amnesia. They aren't going to forget who Harry is if he goes by Harry Mountbatten. Meghan was a known actress and charity spokeswoman before she ever married him. They could change their name to smith and it would be no different.

As for the Yorks, when they were working? They still do.

 

[Denville]

Like the York girls Harry and Meghan do use their names for business. They can't use their titles.

People don't have amnesia. They aren't going to forget who Harry is if he goes by Harry Mountbatten. Meghan was a known actress and charity spokeswoman before she ever married him. They could change their name to smith and it would be no different.

As for the Yorks, when they were working? They still do.

Noone's expecting people to "forget who they are". But most Americans wouldn't know, if they heard there was a podcast from Harry Mountbatten Windsor... who was doing it and would probably not be interested. What got them this deal is the fact that they are the Duke nad Duchess of Sussex which alerts people to the fact that they are related to the queen...
And Meghan wasn't a well known actress. She was in Suits, which wasn't all that popular a series.. and a few TV movies. Without Harry she wouldn't be at all well known.

 

[Curryong]

Sandie Shaw wasn't criticising the Sussexes for anything, so they were not in 'hot water'. Her beef was with the company and how IT chooses to operate towards musicians and singers. So the inference that the couple were in trouble of any kind is false.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Like the York girls Harry and Meghan do use their names for business. They can't use their titles.

People don't have amnesia. They aren't going to forget who Harry is if he goes by Harry Mountbatten. Meghan was a known actress and charity spokeswoman before she ever married him. They could change their name to smith and it would be no different.

As for the Yorks, when they were working? They still do.

There was some controversy where someone on an US television station used their titles - I think it was Gail, Oprah's friend - the DM went nuts over it. But as long as they aren't competing with the royal family or doing something political or embarrassing I don't see a problem. I agree Meghan's fame before she met Harry is greatly exaggerated. I think her wealth must be too unless she got a lot in the divorce. She is famous now for being Harry's wife, not an actress from Suits. She wouldn't have been given millions to make shows for Netflix if she were just Meghan from Suits.

 

[ACO]

Meghan wasn’t an A List actress by any means but she was on a popular cable show that was on for almost a decade. She was a public figure. She had a successful career. How people take that is up to them but doesn’t change that fact.

Of course she was thrust into global stardom due to Harry. All the significant others of the royals are to s degree. Who knew Kate before William? Heck who knew Diana? They weren’t woman you could easily look up. Meghan though you could research her name and plenty would pop up because, again, she was already a public figure.

 

[Denville]

There was some controversy where someone on an US television station used their titles - I think it was Gail, Oprah's friend - the DM went nuts over it. But as long as they aren't competing with the royal family or doing something political or embarrassing I don't see a problem. I agree Meghan's fame before she met Harry is greatly exaggerated. I think her wealth must be too unless she got a lot in the divorce. She is famous now for being Harry's wife, not an actress from Suits. She wouldn't have been given millions to make shows for Netflix if she were just Meghan from Suits.

They can't compete with the RF.. but they are trying to be seen still as "royals doing the things that royals traditionally do" like going to a military cemetery - in November.
And yes of course she's not that famous. There are lots of actresses who had a supporting role in a series or 2.. and once the series is over, they're not "public figures".

 

[ACO]

Once Suits was over she might not have worked again. Or she could have landed another series, play, etc and kept having a low key but successful acting career. We will never know because while she was on her current show (which was many seasons in at that point) she met Harry and her life completely changed.

 

[Denville]

Once Suits was over she might not have worked again. Or she could have landed another series, play, etc and kept having a low key but successful acting career. We will never know because while she was on her current show (which was many seasons in at that point) she met Harry and her life completely changed.

the point being.. She was not well known. Until she started dating Harry, if you'd asked an American "who is Meghan Markle", they probably would not know unless they were Suits fans.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Like the York girls Harry and Meghan do use their names for business. They can't use their titles.

As pointed out previously, the official announcement of their most recent business venture did use their titles, including Prince.

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-1...ll-audio-promises-podcasts-that-will-inspire/

Spotify’s New Multiyear Partnership with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Archewell Audio Promises Podcasts That Will Inspire

December 15, 2020

Telling and listening to uplifting and entertaining stories have been a vital part of many of our lives this past year. Today, Archewell Audio, the newly-formed audio-first production company created by Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex, has announced a multi-year partnership with Spotify to produce podcasts and shows that tell these stories—and inspire even more.

[...]

 

[Denville]

As pointed out previously, the official announcement of their most recent business venture did use their titles, including Prince.

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2020-1...ll-audio-promises-podcasts-that-will-inspire/

They are forbidden form using the HRH for business things, so they have to use Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

 

[ACO]

the point being.. She was not well known. Until she started dating Harry, if you'd asked an American "who is Meghan Markle", they probably would not know unless they were Suits fans.

But who is claiming she was some world famous actress? People are pointing out she was an actress on a popular cable show. She had a career and due to that career when she was linked to Harry it was very easy to learn a lot about her. That was due to having a somewhat public life.

As for Harry and Meghan's titles. Yes they are linked to it but honestly they are mostly known as "Harry and Meghan." The average person likely don't even know their title. That is the case for most the royals. They know Prince William -- not Duke of Cambridge. They say Kate Middleton because that is what majority recognize.

It is a bit silly to say no one would know what is being spoken about if they said "Harry and Meghan" because they absolutely would.

But time will tell come March. Hopefully whatever is decided will end the nonstop debate.

 

[Denville]

But who is claiming she was some world famous actress? People are pointing out she was an actress on a popular cable show. She had a career and due to that career when she was linked to Harry it was very easy to learn a lot about her. That was due to having a somewhat public life.

As for Harry and Meghan's titles. Yes they are linked to it but honestly they are mostly known as "Harry and Meghan." The average person likely don't even know their title. That is the case for most the royals. They know Prince William -- not Duke of Cambridge. They say Kate Middleton because that is what majority recognize.

It is a bit silly to say no one would know what is being spoken about if they said "Harry and Meghan" because they absolutely would.

But time will tell come March. Hopefully whatever is decided will end the nonstop debate.

People claim that Meghan was "well known before she met Harry".. as opposed to others who state that she only gets things like the Netflix deal because she IS married to a prince..... People also state that Meghan is very rich in her own right... which again I doubt if she is...
As for the titles, they may be known on the tabloids as Harry and Meghan but in business deals you have to have a formal name and surname.. and H and Meg have chosne to be known as Duke and Duchess of Sussex....

 

[ACO]

There are plenty who are on here acting like Meghan didn't have a whole life before Harry walked into hers. That is just not true. Of course meeting him raised her profile. It raises ALL their profiles.

As for her lifestyle? I think Meghan had a comfortable life. A very comfortable life. She clearly was member of exclusive clubs. Hobnobbed with celebrities. Travelled. Ambassador for organizations. She was an actress. She worked on a show for 7 years. She had side deals as well. She was just able to do it in peace.

Is it really that shocking to think she had a million or 2 in the bank, if she invested correctly? I have never seen her bank account so I can't claim it one way or another. She was no mega star but there are actors lesser known than than Meghan's status on Suits who are plenty wealthy from all the work they do. You would shocked.

Of course Netflix and Spotify are interested in them because of who they are. You only look twice at any of the royals due to who they are. Harry was born a royal. No matter what happens in his life -- that is not changing. He is still Charles' son. He is still Williams brother. That is not changing.

 

[Denville]

she may have had a comfortable life.. but she was not likely IMO to have made millions from her acting (as others have pointed out) nor was she well known. If she'd made millions it seems very odd that she didn't buy herself a house.. most people like ot have that security of a roof that they own...
As for the titles, that is the whole point. THey have only gotten these deals because they have titles and are related to the queen of England. As an ex army officer and a C list actress they certianly would not have these deals. Yet harry and Meghan walked out of royal life and form many of the things they've siad, they seem to be claiming that they didn't like England, didn't like royal life, didn't really want to be titled.. etc etc.....

 

[Osipi]

If it was me and I had a recurring role in a show filmed in Canada or even had a job in Toronto that I knew didn't have permanency, I would have rented a place to live rather than buy. I rented for years after my divorce in different places until the time came I knew I wanted to put down roots once again. Now I can't be budged from my home. Money doesn't mean you prefer to buy over renting. Situations do.

I will attest to the fact that if someone had asked me about "Meghan Markle" before she hooked up with Harry, it wouldn't have rung a bell. But... if you had asked me about "Rachel Zane" on Suits or the name of her characters in the Hallmark movies she's starred in, that I'd know as I was familiar with Suits and her movies. Suits wasn't high on my "must watch" list but I'd seen it. It's basically the same thing too with Chandra Wilson. (I even had to look up her name). I love her character "Miranda Bailey" on Grey's Anatomy and avidly watch the show but ask me what the actors/actresses real names are and I'd be at a loss in a trivia quiz on the show.

As for Duke and Duchess of Sussex. At this time, they can honestly and legally use those titles for whatever in life they want to. They're not breaking any rules. Public perception is that some see them using "royal" titles in business deals but they're actually not. They, themselves, are not using "HRH" or "Prince". The media could call Meghan "Her Majesty" but it would be *them* making a mistake. Some media recently mistakenly called the Queen "Her Royal Highness" too and we *know* that's a grand mistake.

I don't care about a person's bank account either. The size of a bank account does not define a person or denote their worth. Most people prefer that their bank accounts remain private business and not for public perusal and that holds true for Meghan, Harry, their protection officers and the guy that cuts their lawn and their neighbor 5 houses down the lane from them. Now, if there were any instances of the British taxpayer doling out the green dollars (converted from the British pound) to the Sussexes, that'd be a horse of a completely different color but they get absolutely zilch from the British taxpayer these days.

Just my two cents. Sometimes I feel like my opinion feels like a penny waiting for change but what the heck..

 

[muriel]

As for Duke and Duchess of Sussex. At this time, they can honestly and legally use those titles for whatever in life they want to. They're not breaking any rules. Public perception is that some see them using "royal" titles in business deals but they're actually not. They, themselves, are not using "HRH" or "Prince". The media could call Meghan "Her Majesty" but it would be *them* making a mistake. Some media recently mistakenly called the Queen "Her Royal Highness" too and we *know* that's a grand mistake.

It is all about perception. Whilst they are not using HRH The Duke & Duchess of Sussex, they can very specifically ask the companies they work with to stop referring to them as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This will, at one stroke, take away any suggestions that they are trading on their royal status. They will still remain Duke and Duchess, but will just not use the name for work purposes. Not sure what is wrong with being Harry Sussex. Beatrice used Beatrice York as her work name.

 

[evolvingdoors]

If it was me and I had a recurring role in a show filmed in Canada or even had a job in Toronto that I knew didn't have permanency, I would have rented a place to live rather than buy. I rented for years after my divorce in different places until the time came I knew I wanted to put down roots once again. Now I can't be budged from my home. Money doesn't mean you prefer to buy over renting. Situations do.

I will attest to the fact that if someone had asked me about "Meghan Markle" before she hooked up with Harry, it wouldn't have rung a bell. But... if you had asked me about "Rachel Zane" on Suits or the name of her characters in the Hallmark movies she's starred in, that I'd know as I was familiar with Suits and her movies. Suits wasn't high on my "must watch" list but I'd seen it. It's basically the same thing too with Chandra Wilson. (I even had to look up her name). I love her character "Miranda Bailey" on Grey's Anatomy and avidly watch the show but ask me what the actors/actresses real names are and I'd be at a loss in a trivia quiz on the show.

As for Duke and Duchess of Sussex. At this time, they can honestly and legally use those titles for whatever in life they want to. They're not breaking any rules. Public perception is that some see them using "royal" titles in business deals but they're actually not. They, themselves, are not using "HRH" or "Prince". The media could call Meghan "Her Majesty" but it would be *them* making a mistake. Some media recently mistakenly called the Queen "Her Royal Highness" too and we *know* that's a grand mistake.

I don't care about a person's bank account either. The size of a bank account does not define a person or denote their worth. Most people prefer that their bank accounts remain private business and not for public perusal and that holds true for Meghan, Harry, their protection officers and the guy that cuts their lawn and their neighbor 5 houses down the lane from them. Now, if there were any instances of the British taxpayer doling out the green dollars (converted from the British pound) to the Sussexes, that'd be a horse of a completely different color but they get absolutely zilch from the British taxpayer these days.

Just my two cents. Sometimes I feel like my opinion feels like a penny waiting for change but what the heck..

Regarding the buying vs. renting thing in relation to Meghan wealth: for me personally when I talk about her not owning property it's not about owning one in Toronto but in LA.

 

[Osipi]

It is all about perception. Whilst they are not using HRH The Duke & Duchess of Sussex, they can very specifically ask the companies they work with to stop referring to them as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. This will, at one stroke, take away any suggestions that they are trading on their royal status. They will still remain Duke and Duchess, but will just not use the name for work purposes. Not sure what is wrong with being Harry Sussex. Beatrice used Beatrice York as her work name.

Perhaps this will be a biggie that is discussed at the year end review? Maybe these changes will be made to further emphasize that Harry and Meghan are not hinging their successes (or failures) on their peerage titles. Harry and Meghan Sussex would work for me very well. Mountbatten-Windsor is a mouthful. Windsor would be out for me as it is the name of the House of Windsor which encompasses the royal family of the UK.

The companies will probably go along with not using Duke and Duchess of Sussex but the media is a totally different beast. Their stories hinge on "royals behaving badly" and it garners them a lot of green dollars in the pockets.

Regarding the buying vs. renting thing in relation to Meghan wealth: for me personally when I talk about her not owning property it's not about owning one in Toronto but in LA.

The purchase of the home in California sent a clear message to me. It tells me that they're putting down permanent roots in the US. A place to keep and raise a family. That purchase, in and of itself, tells me there is no intention of going back to the UK with their tails between their legs stating "we've made a mistake". ?