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

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by SiennaMonet

- Other than the than Jessica & Gloria own thoughts on why Meghan fit the bill for want they wanted, I can give you my reasoning if you'd like over private chat because I'm not trying to get into in this thread. I would like to point out, it was more than just marrying someone in *my eyes* though, it helped and would help anyone person that ends up married to someone with a high profile.


- In the article / interview it stated that Gloria & Meghan have been working while now and their main focus is to get the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ratified. It's something Gloria has been working at and she's happy that Meghan is joining her so we can assume, they'll be doing more work together and whatever plans they have, are their plans.

--- and this is just my own thoughts and not a response from here on.

In 2016, I had an abortion. I had just left one job and was starting at another. While I figured out what to do, I cried myself to sleep most nights. I didn't want to be...on this earth. Finally, I managed to get a credit card and with the money from the few weeks I started working, I managed to get it. My boss at the new job told me I couldn't take the day off and I broke down in tears at work because I about a week and half from the cut off date (I remember as it was right around thanks giving). My co-worker, the sweetest woman ever, saw me, I explained what happened and she said became like a mom and was like "NOPE. don't worry about it, I got you."

And she did.

And it wasn't until I was at home after that I felt like I could breathe again. I felt like I could live again.

All of that being said, this is a human rights issue, this is an issue that will cripple poor woman and woc and absolutely black women the most. (even rich black women as Serena almost died because she was ignored despite being THE Serena.)

So, I'm extremely happy Meghan spoke on the subject, I'm extremely happy to know see the faith and friendship put in her Gloria and the faith put in her by Jessica. I'm glad she covered because I've seen this interview has reach and everyone, especially Americans need to understand how devastating this will be in the future. I'm glad Meghan spoke out even if people mock, attack, belittle or roll their eyes at her, as long as they're taking about the issue at hand or their is talk about the issue, I'll be grateful.

And yes, there are other voices speaking on this issue. As they should but not everyone will listen to those voices, not everyone will listen to Meghan's voice because she's Meghan, it's getting covered all over. I've seen Today, Town and Country, Huffpost, Hello Canada and many other outlets that might not cover other voices, are covering this interview.

Either way, I'm thankful. I can only speak for myself but as someone who as lived this experience, who has lived this fear....yeah, ANYONE speaking out on this has my support, however they got their platform. Meghan had a platform before this, it might not have been huge, as big but she has used her voices, this isn't new and I'm not gonna act like I'm not happy that her marrying Harry has given her a bigger platform and a bigger chance to spotlight this issue and those who work with her are surely happy as well.

Now, all of that being said, I'm probs going to bounce until this thread is closed because I honestly don't know how this will go and this is too much of a trigger topic for my me to feel some type of way. It's easier when the thread is closed because you can't reply and let your emotions get in the way of things, tho, if someone quotes and wants to have a real talk, I'm down.

And also,

if anyone has experienced getting an abortions, thinking about it or anything related and you need someone to talk to because there isn't anyone IRL that you can talk to, my messages are open. (I never told my family, we're religious, I'm the pastors granddaughter and my mom had me out of wedlock. there's a lot of trauma in the family around that.) So, even you like Meghan or not, you need a safe-space, for this topic, I'm open.

My heart goes out to you but I don't think these forums are the place to be for you as this is a very divisive subject and we are only discussing whether royals should be involved in talking about it. I hope you have support going forward.

[FigTree]

Originally Posted by sophie25

The Queen should be interested because they are still using the titles she gave them when it was expected they would be representing the British Royal family.

If it’s that worrisome to them or the UK government…take the titles away then. Although I think one thing we are learning is that the title without the force of the royalty behind you is essentially nothing. Just trading on a fancy name.

[SiennaMonet]

Originally Posted by sophie25

My heart goes out to you but I don't think these forums are the place to be for you as this is a very divisive subject and we are only discussing whether royals should be involved in talking about it. I hope you have support going forward.

Thank you for your kind words, I did have a lot of support around me. Not my blood family but those I consider family and my friends were there for me every step of the way. I'll say, it was an amazing experience seeing my co-worker who only knew me for a week or so, go to bat for me like that. I don't know what she said/did behind to our manager at the time but she got me the day off and the next day for recovery.

I disagree about the forum being a place for me. I don't have an issue if people talk about if royals should speak on something or not because they're royals. That doesn't bother me. I don't see this political issue but a human rights/women's rights issue so I don't have any skin in the game on that front.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by SiennaMonet

Thank you for your kind words, I did have a lot of support around me. Not my blood family but those I consider family and my friends were there for me every step of the way. I'll say, it was an amazing experience seeing my co-worker who only knew me for a week or so, go to bat for me like that. I don't know what she said/did behind to our manager at the time but she got me the day off and the next day for recovery.

I disagree about the forum being a place for me. I don't have an issue if people talk about if royals should speak on something or not because they're royals. That doesn't bother me. I don't see this political issue but a human rights/women's rights issue so I don't have any skin in the game on that front.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean it like that, I just thought that your situation seems serious and most of us here are on to talk about more flipant things overall. As far as the Royals go (well the British ones anyway) they really can't be seen to be taking sides politically on any subject and whatever your feelings are here it is a divisive debate. Please keep posting though, great to have you involved.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by FigTree

I won't say I understand the particular ins and outs of the current issue in the USA. In th UK it is a non issue and it is regulated medically. Having said that, we must have all voices on the issue so fine. I don't know who this Jessica but obviously know who Steinem is.

I apologize to the moderators, but I feel I need to respond to that comment. If my post is removed, I kindly ask the moderators to please forward it as a private reply to the OP.

There is actually a lot of misinformation about the "ins and outs of the current issue in the USA". Basically what happened is that, in the 1970s, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Roe v. Wade case, ruled that a woman had an unlimited right to choose to have an abortion of a non-viable fetus without state interference based on her constitutional right to privacy, with legal restrictions allowed, however, depending on how far the woman was into her pregnancy.

Since that was declared a constitutional right, and because the United States has a rigid written constitution with a qualified constitutional amendment procedure, that meant elected legislative bodies in the US could no longer pass ordinary laws restricting or even regulating abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, and all preexisting laws to that end automatically became null and void (as they were unconstitutional). During the second trimester, ordinary law could regulate the abortion procedure but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. After viability, which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester, abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court for the most part confirmed that central opinion while relaxing it somewhat in terms of which regulations could be imposed by law. In particular, in the early 1990s, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court, while upholding the main decision in Roe v. Wade, abandoned nonetheless the strict "trimester framework", thus opening up the possibility of abortion regulations at earlier stages of the pregnancy based on a more scientific viability analysis (rather than merely counting weeks).

What happened now is that the Court, in a case known as Dobson v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, basically reversed its previous opinions in Roe and Planned Parenthood, declaring that they were wrong and that there is no unrestricted constitutional right to choose to have an abortion of a non-viable fetus based on the right to privacy as implicitly protected by the 14th amendment, and that abortion regulation (or lack thereof) is a matter to be decided by the elected legislatures.

That basically puts the US now in line with the UK, which does not have a rigid written constitution and where abortion is regulated by an act of Parliament (the Abortion Act 1967). Moreover, it puts the US back in line with pratically all other countries in the world where abortions are legal. There are very few countries actually where abortion was declared by the courts to be a constitutional right beyond the reach of elected legislatures. In fact, other than the US pre-Dobson v Jackson, Canada is the only other example I know of where there was such a court ruling (in Canada specifically, R. v. Morgentaler)

An important difference, however, between the US and the UK is that the United States is also a federal state where the regulation of abortion, if the legislature decides to do so, falls under the jurisdiction of each of the states rather than the federal government (in this sense, the United States is now in line with Australia for example). The controversy is that, unlike in most of the developed world where, as you said, that is a "non-issue", some states in the US (not all of them) might elect, by contrast, to severely restrict abortions or even prohibit them altogether, and women in those states can no longer rely on the courts to overturn such state laws based on their alleged conflict with the constitution.

Please note also that, unlike in Canada (and perhaps nowadays Australia ?), it is not true that the UK has scrapped all forms of legal /criminal abortion regulation and now regulates it only as "a medical procedure" as you have claimed. As far as I understand , in the UK,except for situations of risk of life to the pregnant woman, or risk of permanent grave injury to her mental or physical health, or risk of the child being born with severe handicap, it is generally unlawful to have an elective abortion beyond the 24th week of gestation and, even before the 24th week, the women requesting the procedure needs the approval of two doctors on the grounds for example of risk to her mental health (or of any of her preexisting children), which, comparatively, is not required in other countries, where there is an unrestricted legal right to abortion on demand in the first trimester for example.

Originally Posted by SiennaMonet

.

I disagree about the forum being a place for me. I don't have an issue if people talk about if royals should speak on something or not because they're royals. That doesn't bother me. I don't see this political issue but a human rights/women's rights issue so I don't have any skin in the game on that front.

I think you didn't quite understand the point. In a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom (or, for that matter, all other modern kingdoms in Europe), the Royal Family is not responsible for government policy and must abstain from expressing opinions on political/partisan issues, which is the case here.

For example, it would be unthinkable and, indeed, perhaps even unconstitutional in the UK, for the Duchess of Sussex to campaiign publicly for a change in the law (as she is campaigning now for the ratification of the ERA in the US). The position most Britons would take is that, if she wanted to influence the legislative process, she should give up her royal status and stand as a candidate for member of Parliament. The Queen could, in private, express her opinion to the Prime Minister or other ministers on proposed legislation, but such opinions are always confidential and, in any case, once the government has made a decision on its legislative agenda, the Queen must accept it, except for most extreme circumstances. The last monarch for example to veto a legislative bill in Britain was Queen Anne in 1708 and, even then, she did so on the advice of her ministers, and not on her personal decision.

My take in this case, however, is that the Meghan is acting not as the Duchess of Sussex and a representative of the British Crown, but rather as the US citizen Rachel Meghan Markle, which is a legitimate constitutional right that she enjoys in the United States. That would become clearer though if she stopped using her British royal title in the US and did her lobbying activities under her "civilian" name. In my opinion, that would be the right thing to do to eliminate any controversy.

In any case, what that signals to me is that Meghan is "burning bridges" and making any comeback to royal life in the UK an even more remote possibility than it already was.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by ACO

I mean we are on a royal forum. What has any of them done to earn their massive platform outside of marriage and being born to someone? At least Meghan has been active most of life on women's issues -- whether you agree with her or not.

It was an interesting chat. Meghan speaking alone will cause some who were likely not paying attention to suddenly take focus, which is the point.

I rather doubt Meghan will move the needle on abortion much in the US, if that’s what you mean. Roe has been over- turned. That will stand imo at least until there is a more liberal court who sees things differently. Which will be some time, I think. They’re appointed for life.

There was plenty of attention on abortion before Roe was overturned; there is plenty now. It’s long been a hot button topic. I doubt Meghan can add much to it.

Not to go OT, but what the court did was refer the matter back to the states. Instead of it being guaranteed within certain parameters nationwide, it now depends on what state you live in and what the law is there. Meghan lives in CA. It’s set there: as in you can have one. I can’t see most people in say Texas (where I live) caring what her opinion is.

She’s welcome to her opinion, but I rather doubt it really matters. It was a big issue before she weighed in. IOW- I don’t think there’s a need for her to bring attention to the subject. And most people are unlikely to just change their minds based on her thoughts.

[Curryong]

https://www.thecut.com/2022/06/megha...nd-of-roe.html

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, rolling back the constitutional right to abortion, many celebrities have expressed outrage and despair, sharing personal stories of abortions and calling on men to step up as allies. In a new conversation with Vogue, Meghan Markle called the SCOTUS ruling a “blueprint for reversing rights” and echoed calls for male allyship, sharing that husband Prince Harry’s reaction to the decision was “guttural like mine.” She added, “Men need to be vocal in this moment and beyond because these are decisions that affect relationships, families, and communities at large. They may target women, but the consequences impact all of us.”


I am glad Meghan is speaking about this issue. And that Harry agrees with her on her conclusions and reactions. As a well known woman and US citizen she has every right to express her disagreement with what has taken place.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Erin9

I rather doubt Meghan will move the needle on abortion much in the US, if that’s what you mean. Roe has been over- turned. That will stand imo at least until there is a more liberal court who sees things differently. Which will be some time, I think. They’re appointed for life.

There was plenty of attention on abortion before Roe was overturned; there is plenty now. It’s long been a hot button topic. I doubt Meghan can add much to it.

Not to go OT, but what the court did was refer the matter back to the states. Instead of it being guaranteed within certain parameters nationwide, it now depends on what state you live in and what the law is there. Meghan lives in CA. It’s set there: as in you can have one. I can’t see most people in say Texas (where I live) caring what her opinion is.

She’s welcome to her opinion, but I rather doubt it really matters. It was a big issue before she weighed in. IOW- I don’t think there’s a need for her to bring attention to the subject. And most people are unlikely to just change their minds based on her thoughts.

Of course her opinion won't move the needle. Never claimed it would. It will give it additional spotlight and create more dialogue which is the goal. I mean what exactly are we doing on this forum right now? We wouldn't be having this conversation had she not.

That is the whole point of why people go to those with massive platforms. While some don't care one way or another -- there will be someone who will suddenly want to learn and invest more just because someone they like said look more into this.

This is has been a hot button issue for decades and will be for decades more.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by ACO

Of course her opinion won't move the needle. Never claimed it would. It will give it additional spotlight and create more dialogue which is the goal. I mean what exactly are we doing on this forum right now? We wouldn't be having this conversation had she not.

That is the whole point of why people go to those with massive platforms. While some don't care one way or another -- there will be someone who will suddenly want to learn and invest more just because someone they like said look more into this.

This is has been a hot button issue for decades and will be for decades more.

I guess where we differ is that I don’t think her commentary really gives additional spotlight to the subject. Yes- we’re talking about it, but we’re not debating it. This isn’t the forum for it anyway.

I highly doubt there are many people who have no opinion on abortion, of all subjects. But maybe that just me. I know Meghan has long been interested in women’s issues, but she’s weighed in on other current issues lately. This is just one more.

Originally Posted by Curryong

https://www.thecut.com/2022/06/megha...nd-of-roe.html

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, rolling back the constitutional right to abortion, many celebrities have expressed outrage and despair, sharing personal stories of abortions and calling on men to step up as allies. In a new conversation with Vogue, Meghan Markle called the SCOTUS ruling a “blueprint for reversing rights” and echoed calls for male allyship, sharing that husband Prince Harry’s reaction to the decision was “guttural like mine.” She added, “Men need to be vocal in this moment and beyond because these are decisions that affect relationships, families, and communities at large. They may target women, but the consequences impact all of us.”


I am glad Meghan is speaking about this issue. And that Harry agrees with her on her conclusions and reactions. As a well known woman and US citizen she has every right to express her disagreement with what has taken place.

She has a right to her opinion, of course.

Though I have little interest in hearing what a male British prince, of all people, thinks on the subject of the American law.

[Curryong]

He may be a British Prince. However, Harry is also a husband, a father and is residing in the US. His wife lost a baby through miscarriage before her last pregnancy an experience which is just as devastating for the father of the lost baby as it is for the mother. He is entitled to his view too.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I think you didn't quite understand the point. In a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom (or, for that matter, all other modern kingdoms in Europe), the Royal Family must abstain from expressing opinions on political/partisan issues, which is the case here (...)

The fact that a group of 5 people have taken it upon themselves to waive a whole country's constitutional right to abortion does not make a woman's right to bodily autonomy a political matter.

[Alison H]

Billie Eilish spoke out about abortion rights at Glastonbury - which was a bit odd, as it's not really an issue in the UK. She's not really a campaigner either, except on vegetarianism. And we had all sorts of celebs putting their two pennorths in before the Brexit referendum and the Scottish independence referendum. I found it quite annoying - how does being a singer or an actor or a sports player give you the right to tell other people how to vote? - but my point is that it's not just Meghan.

[CrownPrincessJava]

Originally Posted by Curryong

He may be a British Prince. However, Harry is also a husband, a father and is residing in the US. His wife lost a baby through miscarriage before her last pregnancy an experience which is just as devastating for the father of the lost baby as it is for the mother. He is entitled to his view too.

Not to mention he also has an American daughter who will be directly affected. Frankly the more people are vocal against the overruling, the better IMHO.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Erin9

She has a right to her opinion, of course.

Though I have little interest in hearing what a male British prince, of all people, thinks on the subject of the American law.

It is actually unfortunate that she is dragging Prince Harry into this debate. That puts him in a delicate position as a British prince, regardless of his personal opinions on the matter. I suppose many Americans are simply not familiar with the restrictions that apply to the Royal Family in the UK and the Commonwealth realms and, although Harry is no longer a working member of the Family and is living in another country, he is still associated with the family in people's minds.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

The fact that a group of 5 people have taken it upon themselves to waive a whole country's constitutional right to abortion does not make a woman's right to bodily autonomy a political matter.

I am not weighing in on the Court's opinion, but, again, as far as I understand, there is no constitutional right to abortion in Denmark. There is a legal right to abortion on demand up to the 12th week only I think, which is regulated by law, and is therefore a political issue. And parental consent is required for minors.

I don't believe the Queen of Denmark or the Crown Princess have ever spoken publicly on changes to the abortion law that they would like to propose to the Danish Parliament (e.g. raising the term limit to 28 weeks, or scrapping parental consent for example). Those matters are left to the elected politicians.

In most countries actually, abortion is regulated by law, not by the constitution.

[SiennaMonet]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I think you didn't quite understand the point. In a constitutional monarchy like the United Kingdom (or, for that matter, all other modern kingdoms in Europe), the Royal Family is not responsible for government policy and must abstain from expressing opinions on political/partisan issues, which is the case here.

For example, it would be unthinkable and, indeed, perhaps even unconstitutional in the UK, for the Duchess of Sussex to campaiign publicly for a change in the law (as she is campaigning now for the ratification of the ERA in the US). The position most Britons would take is that, if she wanted to influence the legislative process, she should give up her royal status and stand as a candidate for member of Parliament. The Queen could, in private, express her opinion to the Prime Minister or other ministers on proposed legislation, but such opinions are always confidential and, in any case, once the government has made a decision on its legislative agenda, the Queen must accept it, except for most extreme circumstances. The last monarch for example to veto a legislative bill in Britain was Queen Anne in 1708 and, even then, she did so on the advice of her ministers, and not on her personal decision.

My take in this case, however, is that the Meghan is acting not as the Duchess of Sussex and a representative of the British Crown, but rather as the US citizen Rachel Meghan Markle, which is a legitimate constitutional right that she enjoys in the United States. That would become clearer though if she stopped using her British royal title in the US and did her lobbying activities under her "civilian" name. In my opinion, that would be the right thing to do to eliminate any controversy.

In any case, what that signals to me is that Meghan is "burning bridges" and making any comeback to royal life in the UK an even more remote possibility than it already was.

Thank you, I do understand the point. I guess, my point is, that part of the topic I just won't be commenting on. I already know what royals aren't supposed to do but this for me, this issue extends beyond that. And because I have those thoughts, it's a conversation I'd watch and take in people's views but I don't have anything personal to say on the matter. (Even though I sort of just did lol, I'm not going to respond to people who's talking about strictly that.)

But if someone gave their thoughts on the actual interview or just what is happening in the USA since the interview is related to that, that's where I'd most likely speak up and possibly add in my two cents.

[Alison H]

Royals aren't supposed to comment on political issues. Abortion isn't really a political issue in the UK in that there's no partisan divide on it - individual politicians may oppose it, for religious or personal reasons, but every political party officially supports the right to abortion under the conditions set down by law. The same applies to other social issues such as divorce and same sex marriage - every party officially supports them, even if individual politicians may not.

It's a very contentious topic in the US, and for that reason it wouldn't be considered appropriate for a member of the British Royal Family to speak out about it. I take the point that Meghan's doing this in her position as an American citizen, but it's a very grey area.

I suppose even what is and isn't political is a grey area, because issues such as environmental protection require legislation. But I think the difference is that abortion in the US is a much more partisan issue than any social issues are in the UK.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava

Not to mention he also has an American daughter who will be directly affected. Frankly the more people are vocal against the overruling, the better IMHO.

They live in California. The ruling doesn’t matter there. It’s a liberal state. Abortion is allowed. Considering where they live and their financial means- it’s difficult for me to think of people less directly affected by this ruling.

The ruling has remanded this issue to the states. Change- for the foreseeable future- will have to come on a state by state basis. Their state isn’t impacted.

For some people in the US - abortion is a religious/moral issue that is fairly partisan divided. I frankly don’t think the opinion of rich celebrities in California- and in this case including a foreign Prince- is likely to change how people, in say Texas, vote for the governor this year. And he is up for re- election. But that’s just my thoughts living in a state that is over all conservative, but more liberal in the urban areas.

[Alison H]

Have I got this right? Apologies if this is going off topic - just want to make sure that I've got it straight in my head.

In England Scotland and Wales, the right to abortion, free of charge, is guaranteed by an Act of Parliament. The vast majority of people support this, although a small number of people who oppose it mainly for religious reasons.

In the US, the Roe vs Wade ruling was that there was a right to abortion under the 14th Amendment. However, the 14th Amendment was passed in order to guarantee civil rights for former slaves, and doesn't mention abortion as that was not an issue in the 1860s. So whether or not civil rights/the right to privacy extend to modern day civil rights such as abortion and same sex marriage is for the Supreme Court to decide, and it's changed its mind as the previous president stacked it with conservatives. It's therefore now an issue for individual states, and conservative states such as Mississippi have banned abortion.

A federal law can't be passed by Congress because it would need a 60/40 majority in the Senate, and there are more than 40 Republicans and they would probably all vote against it.

Is that right? Or, if I'm wrong, where am I going wrong?

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Erin9

They live in California. The ruling doesn’t matter there. It’s a liberal state. Abortion is allowed. Considering where they live and their financial means- it’s difficult for me to think of people less directly affected by this ruling.

The ruling has remanded this issue to the states. Change- for the foreseeable future- will have to come on a state by state basis. Their state isn’t impacted.

For some people in the US - abortion is a religious/moral issue that is fairly partisan divided. I frankly don’t think the opinion of rich celebrities in California- and in this case including a foreign Prince- is likely to change how people, in say Texas, vote for the governor this year. And he is up for re- election. But that’s just my thoughts living in a state that is over all conservative, but more liberal in the urban areas.

I agree Meghan's opinion won't make a difference in Texas and I STRONGLY agree with those who argue that as a member of the BRF she should either drop her title or keep quiet on this issue. But I also think it's important that the rest of us speak out on issues that don't directly affect us to show our support for those who are. Silence won't bring change. Following your logic we should all remain silent on the Taliban's treatment of women because it doesn't affect us and it won't change the political landscape in Afghanistan.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I agree Meghan's opinion won't make a difference in Texas and I STRONGLY agree with those who argue that as a member of the BRF she should either drop her title or keep quiet on this issue. But I also think it's important that the rest of us speak out on issues that don't directly affect us to show our support for those who are. Silence won't bring change. Following your logic we should all remain silent on the Taliban's treatment of women because it doesn't affect us and it won't change the political landscape in Afghanistan.

Fair point there. I wasn’t trying to argue that people should only speak out on issues that directly affect them.

My intent was to address the issues that:

it was mentioned the Sussexes are directly impacted by Roe. Not really from my perspective.

And second- that they were unlikely to change other state’s policy based on their opinion.

And I do agree on the title issue too.