The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: April - August 2023

[kimebear]

Perhaps I missed the point of your original response to me. Could you please clarify?

My original response was to point out that the issue of titles for the people you listed has already been long decided. Titles aren't created out of whole cloth on a whim. Especially for a monarch like Charles who is keen to reduce the royal family size, not enlarge it.


It was only natural that Archie and Lilibet claim the titles that they were already in line to receive when their grandfather became the monarch. They are not responsible for the behavior of their parents, and perhaps their grandfather might like a good relationship with them some day, so he didn't take steps to strip them of the titles with a new LP.

 

[camelot23ca]

I am not sure if this reply of mine ought to be posted here or in the British titles thread; please move if appropriate.



Given that King Charles III has agreed to the Sussex children possessing as well as using royal titles (it was his choice to make, as George V's 1917 letters patent are not binding on subsequent monarchs, in the same way that earlier monarchs' decisions on royal titles were not binding on George V), I see no good reason* why he should not offer the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall, and any future children of Princess Charlotte the option of taking on royal titles.

Snowdon, Sarah, Peter, Zara, and Charlotte's potential future children are as much grandchildren of a monarch as Archie and Lilibet. The fact that they are private non-working members of the royal family should be no impediment because Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet are not expected to become public working members of the royal family, either.

*I do not consider "But Prince Harry is a man and Princesses Margaret, Anne, and Charlotte are only women" to be a good reason. I am aware that the majority believes it is.

I’ve always found it interesting that, given their stated commitment to equality and empowerment for women, they still want their children to use any titles they’re entitled to, even though the system is rooted in discrimination against women. Why are they ok with Archie and Lillibet having (and using) royal titles, and with Archie (but never Lillibet) inheriting his father’s dukedom, when Zara and Peter - as well as any children Charlotte may have in the future - have no titles at all?

They’re fine with discrimination against the females in Harry’s extended family and, more surprisingly to me, they’re also good with the same sort of discrimination against their own daughter.

Not using their own titles, and letting it be known that their children will not be using any sort of titles in the future, would be one way they could align their actions with their stated values.

 

[Alisa]

Simmons and Zimmer are unprofessional, trashy, and perfectly embody the cutthroat Hollywood style. Make them money and be successful and they'll love you snd fawn over you even without "talent ". Be the opposite and they will turn on you and attack like vultures.
Kelly Osborne had the nerve had the nerve join in the crowd in attacking Prince Harry. What a hypocrite and a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Sussex's have quite a lot options and can definitely make their way and be very successful. However, they have to put in the hard work and have a good team around them and most important listen and follow good advice.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My original response was to point out that the issue of titles for the people you listed has already been long decided. Titles aren't created out of whole cloth on a whim. Especially for a monarch like Charles who is keen to reduce the royal family size, not enlarge it.

Thank you for clarifying.

In regard to the first sentence: I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that royal title decisions taken at birth should not be altered later (though I will note that both the Sussexes and the Wessexes take a different view, as both couples have said that their children should be free to make their own decisions about using royal titles once they are adults), but that does not apply to the potential future children of Charlotte (who were also mentioned in my original post), who are obviously still unborn.

In regard to your second sentence: I would apply what I said in original post, namely that if it is not a "whim" for Archie and Lilibet to carry royal titles, then neither would it be a "whim" for other private non-working grandchildren to do so.

In regard to your third sentence: Clearly, King Charles III has now decided that he does not wish to reduce the number of bearers of royal titles, whatever he may have wished earlier.

 

[kimebear]

In regard to your second sentence: I would apply what I said in original post, namely that if it is not a "whim" for Archie and Lilibet to carry royal titles, then neither would it be a "whim" for other private non-working grandchildren to do so.

Except there is no mechanism in place for the others to claim any sort of title, whereas with Archie and Lilibet it was already their birthright under the existing LP. Something that King Charles is very unlikely to change for the future.

 

[Erin9]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 8: Apr. 2023 -

Well the knocks just keep on coming. Another influential Hollywood insider has slammed Meghan in the wake of the cancelled Spotify Contract.
Jeremy Zimmer, a longtime Entertainment Honcho and Chief Executive of United Talent Agency said recently that he wasn't surprised that Spotify "ditched the couple".

Stating that "Meghan Markle was not a great audio talent OR NECESSARILY ANY KIND OF TALENT" OUCH !

I looked him up, and his ties to Hollywood are about as deep as can be.
His grandfather was the legendary writer, director and producer Dore Schary, one of the last "greats" as Head of Production at MGM. Unfortunately during his tenure in the 1950's, Television EXPLODED and the Movies and profits were rocked dramatically. Which led to his being ousted.

Anyways, I really do wonder what the Sussex's make of all this? With THEM, not The Royal Family, being the recipients of spiteful criticism and insults?
From Hollywood insiders no less ?
I'm honestly wondering IF they can turn all this negative press around.

Yeah. That was a pretty massive put down. He said she is no great audio talent or necessarily has any real talent. Ouch indeed.

He had a point: famous people aren’t necessarily great at something.

Meghan was imo a C level actress who got (with Harry) A level contracts based solely on Harry’s family name. Sometimes that sort of thing works out….sometimes not.

So, now things are blowing up left and right. Spotify and Netflix were/are both known to be unhappy.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Exactly, they claim to be so close but Ashley wasn't invited to her first baby shower that took place in New York and neither to her second one that took place in California.
Honestly, I suspect Meghan included Ashley just to throw shade to Samantha since they are estranged and prove to others how unstable is her family.

Her niece Ashleigh seems very sweet - if they are close enough for her to be included in the “docuseries”, they are close enough for her to be invited to the wedding and at least one baby shower. Where does Ashleigh live?

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

If Prince Harry returned to the UK he would probably find all doors closed or a very cold reception from his family. Let's think about it: he insulted his dad's wife, his brother and his wife even questioning their parental skills. He insulted the nation that embraced his wife, as if they wrote the tabloids themselves. No apologies but quick to demand them from his family.

Prediction: When William becomes king, I won't be surprised he does everything possible to state that all their titles end with Harry, nontransferable. This is not a 'let's help Harry find a job' competition. He made his choice and burned every bridge behind down to the ground to a point of no return. Why would William of King Charles be expected to welcome back such an ungrateful man-child and find him something to do in the UK?

At this point the reality is Meghan has better chance of finding work on TV in Tyler Perry's BET network and support the family than Harry finding what to do. And I don't see why William would even consider Harry for any project he is involved in the UK just to give him something to occupy him with. The point of the Homewards Project is not to help Harry pay for his home in California but to help people in need of homes in the UK. The Royal Family has moved on and away from H & M already.

I agree - how could anyone in the RF ever trust Harry again? Bridges have been burned and the charred remains are on the dust heap.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Except there is no mechanism in place for the others to claim any sort of title, whereas with Archie and Lilibet it was already their birthright under the existing LP. Something that King Charles is very unlikely to change for the future.

With all due respect, I see no conflict between what you have written and what I wrote in my original post. As your last sentence appears to acknowledge, it is a voluntary choice to continue implementing the overtly sexist mechanisms laid down by the present sovereign's great-grandfather in 1917.

 

[Ghost]

The legal claim against the Mirror Group is coming to a close.


https://archive.is/42qAw

 

[Magnolia471]

Her niece Ashleigh seems very sweet - if they are close enough for her to be included in the “docuseries”, they are close enough for her to be invited to the wedding and at least one baby shower. Where does Ashleigh live?

Currently, she is working as an immigration lawyer and associate at Fragomen in San Francisco, so I presume she lives there. 5 or 6 hours drive from Montecito.

 

[kimebear]

With all due respect, I see no conflict between what you have written and what I wrote in my original post. As your last sentence appears to acknowledge, it is a voluntary choice to continue implementing the overtly sexist mechanisms laid down by the present sovereign's great-grandfather in 1917.

With respect back, any monarch will most likely only be concerned with the status of their own descendants and not their extended cousins. If King Charles did have an issue with the "sexist mechanisms" of the current LP, then he certainly would only limit changes to Charlotte going forward and not worry about Margaret's children or Anne's. Either way it wouldn't impact Archie or Lilibet unless changes were also made to male line children which would be very messy i.e. Denmark.

 

[Ista]

Let's move on from discussing the titles issue unless it is kept very closely tied to the topic of this thread. More general discussion and observations belong on the Titles thread.

 

[Ista]

In addition to the link member Ghost posted to the Telegraph here is an article from The Times concerning the closing arguments in the Mirror court case:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-just-500-over-phone-hacking-claims-bb2pncjpk

 

[Curryong]

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/l...prince-harry-meghan-markle-future-at-netflix/

A Netflix spokesperson has spoken to ET Canada about the deal with the Sussexes and it’s still on.

‘Meghan Markle and Prince Harry may have parted ways with Spotify, but the royal couple is still working with Netflix.

The two signed a reported $100 million deal with Netflix in 2020, and it is still ongoing. A Netflix spokesperson told Entertainment Tonight Canada, "We value our partnership with Archewell Productions. Harry & Meghan was Netflix’s biggest documentary debut ever, and we’ll continue to work together on a number of projects, including the upcoming documentary series Heart of Invictus."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Have moved the titles discussion to here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-351.html#post2560576

 

[Erin9]

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/l...prince-harry-meghan-markle-future-at-netflix/

A Netflix spokesperson has spoken to ET Canada about the deal with the Sussexes and it’s still on.

‘Meghan Markle and Prince Harry may have parted ways with Spotify, but the royal couple is still working with Netflix.

The two signed a reported $100 million deal with Netflix in 2020, and it is still ongoing. A Netflix spokesperson told Entertainment Tonight Canada, "We value our partnership with Archewell Productions. Harry & Meghan was Netflix’s biggest documentary debut ever, and we’ll continue to work together on a number of projects, including the upcoming documentary series Heart of Invictus."

That’s pretty much what I would expect Netflix to say on the record, publicly right now. The Sussexes are still under contract. And supposedly at least invictus is happening. No surprise there.

But I absolutely believe the WSJ that behind the scenes, Netflix isn’t happy with them. The Sussexes have really only produced one thing- and it was about themselves. Yes- that one thing was successful, but that’s still all they’ve done. (Live to Lead is not even worth mentioning imo. The Sussexes were slotted into it, and no one watched.)

 

[Asteria12]

I felt sympathy for Ashleigh too. Meghan's excuse would be immediately recognised by most people as the equivalent to "my Mum said you can't come" or "sorry, its a work thing" or "we just don't have enough room at the reception for everyone to come, so...". It felt to me that Meghan revealed herself with that action to be more like her sister Samantha than she'd ever admit!

 

[UglyAmerican]

I was bothered by some of what Ashleigh said, too. Not that she wasn't invited to the wedding - I thought it was believable that the palace would advise against inviting her. (Though, as usual, I wouldn't be shocked if that turned out to be made up...) But it sounded like Meghan went further, and basically cut Ashleigh out of her life entirely. I didn't think the Palace would have suggested that, because why would they care if Meghan occasionally texts her niece or talks to her on the phone in private? And more importantly, Meghan didn't even try blame the palace for that part. She just talked about how much she appreciated Ashleigh forgiving her resuming their friendship once she'd left the UK and found herself in need of friends again.

It stuck in my mind because there have been so many different people who claimed Meghan did exactly this: developed what they thought was a close, sincere friendship, then discarded them very abruptly when they were no longer useful to her. I wouldn't normally take any of it at face value, but there are just so many that it makes one wonder. And here we have confirmation from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Meghan did that and (in this case) regretted it.

 

[Toledo]

I can only wonder how her niece must feel now, so betrayed to be used in a TV series to state a lie she was told about the wedding invitation, then seen selected celebrities in her seat and now finding out it was all made up by the bride. She didn't want a single camera to focus on any other relative, except her mother, at the wedding,

And it's too late now but interviewing her niece in her podcast would have been a life saver for Meghan to talk about family issues people can relate to. No one relates to the stories with millionaires or billionaires Mariah Carey, Serena. Or the disappointment that is now Gloria Steinem, a legend in feminism and women standing up for themselves and now handing awards to a TV actress that married a rich entitled guy to make money on tabloid worthy stories. Of the lot of guests, Steinem was the most embarrassing to invite.

Had she only interviewed the niece that Spotify gig would have taken a different turn.

 

[Alison H]

There are lots of relatable things which Mariah and Serena could have talked about. Both worked their way up from poor backgrounds. Mariah has had to deal with her sister's alcoholism, and her mum's family disowning her for marrying a man of a different race. Serena has campaigned for better maternity care, after she had a very difficult time during Olympia's birth. But Meghan barely let either of them get a word in!

 

[Granada]

Yes, I agree with many of the sentiments here.

Ashleigh WAS used by Meghan to further the "mean-rotten" Family-Firm-Institution spin in the Docu-series that Meghan certainly loves to project.

Does anyone really believe that if "Palace Aides" had told Meghan that She could NOT invite her niece, that Harry wouldnt have hit the roof ?
And immediately gone to The Queen ? Look how Harry reacted to a botched Tiara-Hairdresser appointment with Angela Kelly. Its preposterous. Or that Queen Elizabeth wouldn't have overruled this mysterious "Palace Aide" ? Or again, if true, why didn't it get mentioned in Spare ?

On top of the fact, that it only would have made clear that Ashleigh's Mother, Samantha, doesn't EVEN get along with her own daughter, but Meghan did, had She welcomed her to The Wedding.

Why Meghan "cuts" family - friends like that ? I have no idea. But She can be ruthless, unyielding and mostly unforgiving. So much so for "leading the way with compassion" which is the mantra on The Archewell Website, laughingly.

 

[Prinsara]

There are lots of relatable things which Mariah and Serena could have talked about. Both worked their way up from poor backgrounds. Mariah has had to deal with her sister's alcoholism, and her mum's family disowning her for marrying a man of a different race. Serena has campaigned for better maternity care, after she had a very difficult time during Olympia's birth. But Meghan barely let either of them get a word in!

Meghan is not from a poor background. Her father was a Hollywood lighting director with the commensurate unionized salary who paid for Meghan's private school and private university education, and his brother connected her to her internship at the embassy in Buenos Aires. Her myth about being a self-made woman who struggled before trying to break into acting is just that, sui generis.

 

[JR76]

Yes, I agree with many of the sentiments here.

Ashleigh WAS used by Meghan to further the "mean-rotten" Family-Firm-Institution spin in the Docu-series that Meghan certainly loves to project.

Does anyone really believe that if "Palace Aides" had told Meghan that She could NOT invite her niece, that Harry wouldnt have hit the roof ?
And immediately gone to The Queen ? Look how Harry reacted to a botched Tiara-Hairdresser appointment with Angela Kelly. Its preposterous. Or that Queen Elizabeth wouldn't have overruled this mysterious "Palace Aide" ? Or again, if true, why didn't it get mentioned in Spare ?

On top of the fact, that it only would have made clear that Ashleigh's Mother, Samantha, doesn't EVEN get along with her own daughter, but Meghan did, had She welcomed her to The Wedding.

Why Meghan "cuts" family - friends like that ? I have no idea. But She can be ruthless, unyielding and mostly unforgiving. So much so for "leading the way with compassion" which is the mantra on The Archewell Website, laughingly.

The Queen famously told William to tear up the list of guests that the palace aidees felt he had to invite to his wedding so I doubt that she wouldn't have said the same to Harry.

 

[Lady Chiara]

I also thought that the reason they didn't invite Ashleigh was weird.

Like, at the time it was clear that Meghan relationship with her half siblings was non existent and the public opinion was on Meghan's side, so I think the palace insisting on non inviting Ashleigh would have been counter productive.

They would want to invite the niece and demonstrate that, while Samantha was "problematic" to the point her own daughter has no contact, that still doesn't impact the relationship between other family members.

 

[TLLK]

Yes, I agree with many of the sentiments here.

Ashleigh WAS used by Meghan to further the "mean-rotten" Family-Firm-Institution spin in the Docu-series that Meghan certainly loves to project.

Does anyone really believe that if "Palace Aides" had told Meghan that She could NOT invite her niece, that Harry wouldnt have hit the roof ?
And immediately gone to The Queen ? Look how Harry reacted to a botched Tiara-Hairdresser appointment with Angela Kelly. Its preposterous. Or that Queen Elizabeth wouldn't have overruled this mysterious "Palace Aide" ? Or again, if true, why didn't it get mentioned in Spare ?

On top of the fact, that it only would have made clear that Ashleigh's Mother, Samantha, doesn't EVEN get along with her own daughter, but Meghan did, had She welcomed her to The Wedding.

Why Meghan "cuts" family - friends like that ? I have no idea. But She can be ruthless, unyielding and mostly unforgiving. So much so for "leading the way with compassion" which is the mantra on The Archewell Website, laughingly.

I tend to believe that Palace aides never made this type of stipulation that Meghan could not invite Ashleigh to the wedding.

I agree that HLM would have let Harry and Meghan invite whomever they wished to the wedding. After all a number of guests ie the Clooneys who had never met Meghan, were issued an invitation while extended Windsor family members did not receive one. The late Queen didn't even take the steps to see that her extended family were on the invitation list, so I tend to believe that the Sussexes created their own list.

 

[Alison H]

Meghan is not from a poor background. Her father was a Hollywood lighting director with the commensurate unionized salary who paid for Meghan's private school and private university education, and his brother connected her to her internship at the embassy in Buenos Aires. Her myth about being a self-made woman who struggled before trying to break into acting is just that, sui generis.

I know. My point was that Mariah and Serena are both from poor backgrounds, so I wouldn't say that people can't relate to them because they're billionaires.

I don't believe for a minute that Meghan was told that she couldn't invite Ashleigh to the wedding. And it was awful that Doria was left sitting there all by herself. Surely they could have asked someone - a friend? - to accompany her.

 

[Queen Claude]

Thomas Markle was supposed to be at the wedding until he had his health episode, so Meghan would have had her mother and father present had things gone according to plan. Nevertheless, not inviting Ashleigh and other non-Samantha/Thomas Jr. relatives, while simultaneously inviting and seating Oprah and the Clooneys in the Quire, was no bueno in my book.

 

[UglyAmerican]

And as it happened, the wedding was basically the Jessica Mulroney show. I never thought she was a particularly nice person, nor did I believe it was a coincidence that Meghan's chosen "best friend" was a woman who'd married into one of the most powerful families in Canada. The absence of family and other friends made Meghan's choice to put Jessica's family front and center all the more significant. But just a few years later, she's no longer a part of Meghan's life after what sounds like a minor personal disagreement with a fashion blogger somehow blew up in the media (probably only because she was Meghan's friend). Jessica may have been in the wrong there (to be honest, I can't figure out what's supposed to have happened), but it seems like such a minor thing to cut out such a close friend over. But by then, she was no longer living in Canada and was more famous in her own right than any Mulroney had ever been (at least in the US), so I guess Jessica was simply more trouble than she was worth at that point.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

Currently, she is working as an immigration lawyer and associate at Fragomen in San Francisco, so I presume she lives there. 5 or 6 hours drive from Montecito.

Thank you!