The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022

[Prinsara]

Is it possible Meghan didn't know that Gillibrand had not informed her colleagues she was giving their numbers out, or simply assumed it must be fine given the source? Again, it's a bit pretentious, entitled, and naive, but you'd have to fault the senator for enabling her, not Meghan.

What I wonder is, how, with her background of advocacy and charity work, did she suddenly decide that there are no paid leave groups in California that could use her voice, and that she needed and was entitled to work directly with senators all of a sudden? (Not even anybody in the House of Representatives?) Whether she means to or not, it comes across as her first, cause second.

And I seem to remember back when they were still working in the BRF they introduced themselves as "Harry and Meghan", all the time. Now on the outside, she is permanently reminding everyone she has a title, even when ludicrously inappropriate.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Is it possible Meghan didn't know that Gillibrand had not informed her colleagues she was giving their numbers out, or simply assumed it must be fine given the source? Again, it's a bit pretentious, entitled, and naive, but you'd have to fault the senator for enabling her, not Meghan.

What I wonder is, how, with her background of advocacy and charity work, did she suddenly decide that there are no paid leave groups in California that could use her voice, and that she needed and was entitled to work directly with senators all of a sudden? (Not even anybody in the House of Representatives?) Whether she means to or not, it comes across as her first, cause second.

And I seem to remember back when they were still working in the BRF they introduced themselves as "Harry and Meghan", all the time. Now on the outside, she is permanently reminding everyone she has a title, even when ludicrously inappropriate.

Yes, this could be, and I appreciate this post giving Meghan the benefit of the doubt.

At the same time, she has emphasized that she is involving herself and providing input on this issue as Meghan the citizen, mom, and wife, and not Meghan of any particular position or prestige. If this is true, she should be reaching out using official communication channels only (the same available to every other wife, mom, and citizen), and not ones afforded to her due to her position and prestige. Otherwise, she is indeed not acting as Citizen Meghan but as Privileged Position Meghan.

And people do this all the time. They use their connections to afford them special access to make their voices heard. The problem here is that the Privileged Position is derived entirely, 100% from her place in a foreign peerage whose existence hangs on not doing exactly this.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Granada

The other aspect I found interesting as she lobbied these two Senators on their own "private" phone numbers is that Meghan blocked her own phone number.
She thought nothing of cold calling them, but SHE is off limits for them, had they been so inclined to have her phone number.
She really does come off as quite full of herself and yes, entitled.

Good point. That is interesting.

And not surprising imo. There seems to be a disconnect at times as to how Harry and Meghan view their own privacy rights versus other’s.

[Somebody]

I fully understand that Meghan doesn't make her number public... Cold calling senators on their private phone numbers (who assume it is a colleague because said senator-colleague also has a blocked number) is the problem (as I said previously, I believe the primary error of judgment in this lies with the D-senator who handed out the numbers; hopefully Meghan has learned that she needs to check more carefully before using private information that people gave her because of her status).

In terms of calling as a 'private citizen', she at least acknowledged that she is a very privileged citizen who has many benefits and advantages that fellow-Americans don't have. So, she is not advocating for something that will benefit her personally but for the many, many others in less fortunate situations.

[ladongas]

Gillibrand has been a US Senator for about 10 years now. I’m sure she is well aware of what the customs of the Senate allow/demand. I rather think that it is not unusual for phone numbers to be passed along without permission if the caller is a known quantity. You don’t want to miss a call from a potential big money donor. At any rate, if this is some terrible breach, it’s on the Senator, not Meghan.

And identifying herself by her correct title just makes sense- no embarrassing struggle to recall who Meghan Markle might be, just cut to the chase.

If the Senator called me, I want to know her title right away, because I might hang up in an unknown Kirsten.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I fully understand that Meghan doesn't make her number public... Cold calling senators on their private phone numbers (who assume it is a colleague because said senator-colleague also has a blocked number) is the problem (as I said previously, I believe the primary error of judgment in this lies with the D-senator who handed out the numbers; hopefully Meghan has learned that she needs to check more carefully before using private information that people gave her because of her status).

I can get Meghan not wanting her private number public in general- except when she’s calling United States senators on THEIR private numbers.

I think this is on both the Senator who gave them out and Meghan.

As to how common this is in terms of senators just passing out other senators private numbers for VIP lobbying without their knowledge or permission- maybe I’m misreading the “tone” of the senators- but I didn’t think they were exactly thrilled.

At any rate- it was apparently worth saying publicly- Meghan blocked her own number, used their personal numbers which they hadn’t given permission for, and used her foreign title as an introduction- and noted the “irony” of doing so. It really didn’t sound overly complimentary in general. Just being polite enough to say they were happy to listen to her thoughts, but they have their own constituents concerns at heart.

It honestly sounds like a waste of everyone’s time except for the PR aspect, which is not minor. Cold calling senators is not going to move the needle from my POV. She is not personally going to change anyone’s minds IMO. But- she and the issue got additional attention. Though it frankly is getting a lot anyway because it IS a big issue.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

What I wonder is, how, with her background of advocacy and charity work, did she suddenly decide that there are no paid leave groups in California that could use her voice, and that she needed and was entitled to work directly with senators all of a sudden? (Not even anybody in the House of Representatives?) Whether she means to or not, it comes across as her first, cause second.

Meghan was speaking on behalf of the Paid Leave For All organization she has been working with the past few weeks. She wrote the open letter for them too. Meghan not going to get anything passed but she can bring an insane amount of attention to it by being an advocate. And quite frankly since she has been so publicly supportive I have seen it quite everywhere. What comes of it will come but people are definitely discussing... including this royal thread.

[Granada]

I guess I will leave it that for me, it is simply another head shaking moment. Harry and Meghan seem to do these bold faced and attention getting "actions" alot. I wonder if any trips to Cemetery's are planned for next week ? With a Photographer in tow.
She doesn't seem the type to want to work quietly and effectively behind the Scenes either. I do believe this move did ruffle some feathers, especially the two Senators involved. Appears with these two Senators, it backfired.
Maybe Senator Gillibrand is a fan and is impressed by Meghan. I think others, on both sides of the Political spectrum might be a little wary, given Megan's history, of this important issue being hijacked to boost Meghan's profile.

[fabaunty]

Meghan , Duchess of Sussex is not her correct title , unless she and the Duke are divorced she is either the Duchess of Sussex, or in her identity as a American citizen Meghan Markel . Truly unless she can decide on which identity she wishes to use when lobbying , [on what i agree is an important issue ], she is just going to garner more unfavourable comments . The senator was wrong to give out the telephone numbers , trust goes both ways .

[Curryong]

However Meghan hasn’t been Meghan Markle since May 2018, when she married. She has barely used that name since, (once only as I recall, on her daughter’s birth certificate) though she’s been called Markle in the media many times by journalists.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Curryong

However Meghan hasn’t been Meghan Markle since May 2018, when she married. She has barely used that name since, (once only as I recall, on her daughter’s birth certificate) though she’s been called Markle in the media many times by journalists.

When not using a title - such as when they are abroad in a private capacity and need/wish to be identified without a title -, they may use a surname; which for Harry would be Mountbatten-Windsor (which is also the surname their children use).

Apparently Meghan's surname on her US passport is still Markle instead of Mountbatten-Windsor (otherwise she would have used M-W on the birth certificate). So, it seems that in fact she is still Meghan Markle according to the most relevant document: her US passport.

[Curryong]

Passports are valid for ten years though, so that may well have been issued before Meghan’s marriage in 2018 and she will probably continue to use that one until it runs out. There is no evidence that Meghan has regularly used Markle in her private life however since her marriage and the ending of her acting career.

As a Prince and Royal Duke Harry doesn’t have the surname Mountbatten Windsor. So why would Meghan use it?


The royal family's website states that "The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." Which is why Archie (who doesn't have a title!) uses the last name and Harry (who is a Prince!) does not.

[UglyAmerican]

She must have some kind of legal name, and I don't think a US citizen can get "Firstname, Duke/Duchess of Whatever" as their full name on their American documents. If she ever drives herself anywhere, she'd need a California license. She wouldn't already have a valid one because she hadn't lived in California since 2011 - whatever she had before would have long expired. More and more women keep their names upon marriage, so I'd be surprised if she changed it. But if she did, "Meghan Windsor" or "Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor" would also work fine.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Somebody

When not using a title - such as when they are abroad in a private capacity and need/wish to be identified without a title -, they may use a surname; which for Harry would be Mountbatten-Windsor (which is also the surname their children use).

Apparently Meghan's surname on her US passport is still Markle instead of Mountbatten-Windsor (otherwise she would have used M-W on the birth certificate). So, it seems that in fact she is still Meghan Markle according to the most relevant document: her US passport.

The birth certificate asked for her name at birth, not the name on her passport. The craziness with the father's "legal" names aside there, there is absolutely no reason saying "Hi, this is Meghan Markle/Mountbatten-Windsor. Senator Gillibrand gave me your number" wouldn't have worked perfectly well as an introduction, as a feminist and an American citizen calling to lobby Congress.

[Curryong]

She may use the name that might still be on her passport for use on any driving licence in California. I don’t think anyone has seen it. But she doesn’t use Marke in her private life since marrying, as we have seen.

And as Harry technically doesn’t have a surname why would Meghan use Mountbatten Windsor for hers?

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Curryong

She may use the name that might still be on her passport for use on any driving licence in California. I don’t think anyone has seen it. But she doesn’t use Marke in her private life since marrying, as we have seen.

And as Harry technically doesn’t have a surname why would Meghan use Mountbatten Windsor for hers?

Because people who live in the US do not get the luxury of "not having a surname", and titles are not recognized for use on legal documents. Or by anyone in Congress.

Since his brother who is in the exact same situation re: names used "Mountbatten-Windsor" in the exact same situation (legally, in a country that doesn't recognize anything else), that would be the last name Meghan would use, should she prefer her married one to her birth name, should she choose to start acting like an American instead of someone who lived in the UK for two years, hating it.

[Durham]

This sort of thing does damage the idea of monarchy as an institution in the UK. And this monarch’s legacy will be somewhat tainted unfortunately. I’m not sure that this is always understood outside of Britain although posters on here do valiantly persevere in trying to explain the British context. So thank you to them.

Where this whole weird situation ends exactly is not clear but lessons do have to be learnt going forward to prevent relatives of the monarch profiting from & abusing their royal status. We've had examples before of course but this has the potential to be on a whole other level. It arguably already is totally unprecedented. It's all very concerning.

[Osipi]

Y'know. we're probably spending more time talking about these phone calls that Meghan made whereas for the Senators she called, it was most likely an in one ear and out the other kind of thing. We're discussing it because it is Meghan.

What I'm kind of disappointed in is Meghan's choice of what to advocate for. Although I do think that the first months of a child's life is important for the family to be together and bond, with the situation this country is in right now economically and with the needs of many being more of a top drawer issue right now, I would have thought that Meghan would get behind causes that aim to assist those that really need it at this time rather than lobby for Paid Leave For All organization. To me, this would be something that could well be put on the back burner until more important issues are ironed out. But that's just me.

[Curryong]

It may not be significant to some sectors of the US population. Others might say, Osipi, that families being significantly financially disadvantaged during the time that a new little member joins them is pretty important to them. Especially as most countries in the First World have had measures like paid parental leave put in place by their governments for many years.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Curryong

As a Prince and Royal Duke Harry doesn’t have the surname Mountbatten Windsor. So why would Meghan use it?

The royal family's website states that "The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor." [..]

To the contrary, the article from the official royal family website confirms that for legal purposes, the members of the royal family who have royal titles and styles do have legal surnames:

Continued from the previous post, as the forum would not allow me to quote the website in the previous post:

The Royal Family name | The Royal Family
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

In any case, my understanding is that the majority of the preceding comments were not making the argument that Markle was necessarily the Duchess of Sussex's legal surname or that she should use it as her surname. The message of the comments was about the issue of usage of the royal title.

If you would like to continue debating legal naming issues, however, I suggest we move it to the thread to which I linked.