The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 11-05-2021, 11:14 AM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,916
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.
__________________

  #302  
Old 11-05-2021, 11:29 AM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
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.
__________________

  #303  
Old 11-05-2021, 11:30 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
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 otherís.
  #304  
Old 11-05-2021, 11:44 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,869
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.
  #305  
Old 11-05-2021, 12:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,990
Gillibrand has been a US Senator for about 10 years now. Iím 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 donít want to miss a call from a potential big money donor. At any rate, if this is some terrible breach, itís 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.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.Ē

Abraham Lincoln
  #306  
Old 11-05-2021, 12:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,201
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: August 2021-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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 sheís 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 Iím misreading the ďtoneĒ of the senators- but I didnít 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 hadnít given permission for, and used her foreign title as an introduction- and noted the ďironyĒ of doing so. It really didnít 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 everyoneís 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 anyoneís minds IMO. But- she and the issue got additional attention. Though it frankly is getting a lot anyway because it IS a big issue.
  #307  
Old 11-05-2021, 12:50 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
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.
  #308  
Old 11-05-2021, 01:40 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 11
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.
  #309  
Old 11-05-2021, 02:01 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Cambridge, United Kingdom
Posts: 124
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 .
  #310  
Old 11-05-2021, 02:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
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.
  #311  
Old 11-05-2021, 03:13 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
However Meghan hasnít been Meghan Markle since May 2018, when she married. She has barely used that name since, (once only as I recall, on her daughterís birth certificate) though sheís 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.
  #312  
Old 11-05-2021, 03:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
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.
  #313  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:00 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 302
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.
  #314  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:06 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
  #315  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:07 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
She may use the name that might still be on her passport for use on any driving licence in California. I donít think anyone has seen it. But she doesnít use Marke in her private life since marrying, as we have seen.

And as Harry technically doesnít have a surname why would Meghan use Mountbatten Windsor for hers?
  #316  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:18 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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.
  #317  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:22 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,702
This sort of thing does damage the idea of monarchy as an institution in the UK. And this monarchís legacy will be somewhat tainted unfortunately. Iím 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.
  #318  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:28 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,940
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #319  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:38 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,545
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.
  #320  
Old 11-05-2021, 04:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
As a Prince and Royal Duke Harry doesnít 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



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Quote:
However, in 1960, [...] It was therefore declared in the Privy Council 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.

The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the marriage register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips.
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.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
archie mountbatten-windsor, duchess of sussex, duke of sussex, lili mountbatten-windsor


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (1 members and 9 guests)
fabaunty
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 3: March - April 2021 Jacknch Current Events Archive 2203 04-06-2021 01:08 PM
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 09:05 PM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history ingrid-alexandra japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia nara period noble families politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit suthida thai royal family tokugawa unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×