The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[SLV]

It is indeed far more fraught given that 'Sussex' is not Meghan's surname (although it is customary in het United Kingdom (not the USA) to use the peerage as an informal surname in day to day life). According to Lilibet's birth certificate, Meghan's legal surname is 'Markle'. Her husband's and children's surname is 'Mountbatten-Windsor'.

It may be formally, but many royals use their title as surname. William and Harry were Wales in school and military. Beatrice and Eugenie use(d) York. Edmund and Sophie used Wessex for their children. George and his siblings were named Cambridge. So, there is nothing unusual about H&M using Sussex, even if technically Harry's name is W-M.

Edit: Sorry, I am still at page 70-something. I just saw that others posted about this already. Feel free to remove my post.

 

[Somebody]

It may be formally, but many royals use their title as surname. William and Harry were Wales in school and military. Beatrice and Eugenie use(d) York. Edmund and Sophie used Wessex for their children. George and his siblings were named Cambridge. So, there is nothing unusual about H&M using Sussex, even if technically Harry's name is W-M.

Edit: Sorry, I am still at page 70-something. I just saw that others posted about this already. Feel free to remove my post.

Which I already acknowledged in my post as well. Indeed, the children of peers within the BRF often use their father's designation as their informal surname.

However, if the peers or their spouses need to use a surname, they are to use Mountbatten-Windsor. William for example did so when he needed one in France (abroad) and Anne used it on her wedding certificate. So, all in all, the situation is much more complicated than for someone with only a surname and without a husband with a British/foreign title/peerage.

And all of this is even without taking into account that Meghan is American, not Britsh, living in the States, so American naming customs and regulations should be leading.

Even for their British-American children living in the States, it would make most sense to use their surname. If Mountbatten-Winsor would be deemed to long for Archie and Lili -who had that surname from birth(!) unlike their British style and title of prince(ss) of Sussex- to use in daily life, it can be shortened to using just 'Windsor' as Harry's cousins Louise and James do or did as well in school. And with 'Windsor' the clear connection to the BRF -and the place they claim to be very fond of- remains if that would be the concern.

 

[OwlBranch]

They say the best revenge is to live well. Meghan through her show has shown that she is indeed living very well. Her show is pretty much review proof, between her dedicated fan base and people hate watching, for sure she is getting plenty of views. Her show is top 10 in many different countries and is being renewed for a 2nd season (What a clap back to those headline about her losing her Netflix deal!). I spied a woman watching her show on her phone on the train while I was commuting to work. It is actually a very soothing watch while you are traveling on a plane or a train.

While the show is not shot in her house, we still get glimpse of her property. Not to mention, she just posted on Instagram a video of her making cookies with friends and family in her own kitchen.

I’m always amazed at the creativity of the criticism of Meghan. The goal post is constantly moving. Criticism about her show being not appropriate given the current political and social climate makes me laugh. I’m sorry, was there world peace when Martha Stewart was on TV?

I’m certain that her “As Ever” products will sell out, so both Netflix and Meghan can laugh their way to the bank.

 

[Marengo]

The show is perhaps proof that she is able to make a succesful netflix series. As for living well: let’s hope that she and her family do and we have no reason to believe otherwise.

It seems indeed that she has found a niche that may work for her: baking cookies and serving food on tv. It is a real and honest job and we should be happy if this proves to be a way forward and a way to leave the past behind. Living in the past is not healthy for anybody.

But I do not believe that we can say much about how well she lives or not based on what we see on television. That goes for the duchess of Sussex or most other reality television we see. In the end nearly all of what we see is produced, edited and scripted exactly to give that impression.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Which I already acknowledged in my post as well. Indeed, the children of peers within the BRF often use their father's designation as their informal surname.

However, if the peers or their spouses need to use a surname, they are to use Mountbatten-Windsor. William for example did so when he needed one in France (abroad) and Anne used it on her wedding certificate. So, all in all, the situation is much more complicated than for someone with only a surname and without a husband with a British/foreign title/peerage.

Another manner of phrasing, which I think may be useful when explaining to persons not already familiar with British peerage customs, is that for certain people with British titles, there is traditionally a difference between the surname they use when necessary on legal documents (Mountbatten-Windsor) and the surname they use when necessary in daily life (Sussex). It is analogous to certain people having a legal given name (Lilibet Diana) but using a different given name in daily life (Lili).

And all of this is even without taking into account that Meghan is American, not Britsh, living in the States, so American naming customs and regulations should be leading.

Even for their British-American children living in the States, it would make most sense to use their surname. If Mountbatten-Winsor would be deemed to long for Archie and Lili -who had that surname from birth(!) unlike their British style and title of prince(ss) of Sussex- to use in daily life, it can be shortened to using just 'Windsor' as Harry's cousins Louise and James do or did as well in school. And with 'Windsor' the clear connection to the BRF -and the place they claim to be very fond of- remains if that would be the concern.

I agree that the principles of international law appear to recognize a sovereign country as the controlling authority in the matter of its citizens' names, such that most countries would recognize the United States as having sole jurisdiction over Meghan's legal name and the United Kingdom as having sole jurisdiction over Harry's legal name. In the case of individuals possessing multiple citizenships, it seems each country is the authority over its own affairs, such that U.S. law would govern the names on Archie and Lili's U.S. passports and U.K. law would govern the names on Archie and Lili's U.K. passports.

However, I don't think the principles applied to legal issues affect daily life and social custom. In social settings, it seems American society generally defers to foreign royal status. Just like her husband, the American-citizen Duchess of Sussex has been accorded royal VIP treatment by American state governors and is consistently addressed by her British royal titles by American governments, businesses, nonprofits, media outlets, and the general public, and presumably American society will accord the same royal treatment to her children when they are old enough. So in keeping with that social treatment, it would make sense for Archie and Lili's naming in daily life (at their age, school and extracurricular activities) to follow British royal customs (Archie Sussex and Lili Sussex) rather than "ordinary American citizen" customs, even though they are legally both.

 

[Hallo girl]

They say the best revenge is to live well. Meghan through her show has shown that she is indeed living very well. Her show is pretty much review proof, between her dedicated fan base and people hate watching, for sure she is getting plenty of views. Her show is top 10 in many different countries and is being renewed for a 2nd season (What a clap back to those headline about her losing her Netflix deal!). I spied a woman watching her show on her phone on the train while I was commuting to work. It is actually a very soothing watch while you are traveling on a plane or a train.

While the show is not shot in her house, we still get glimpse of her property. Not to mention, she just posted on Instagram a video of her making cookies with friends and family in her own kitchen.

I’m always amazed at the creativity of the criticism of Meghan. The goal post is constantly moving. Criticism about her show being not appropriate given the current political and social climate makes me laugh. I’m sorry, was there world peace when Martha Stewart was on TV?
I’m certain that her “As Ever” products will sell out, so both Netflix and Meghan can laugh their way to the bank.

It is already filmed so not renewed on the strength of the first series, to be honest I find it sad that her life is now filming herself baking cookies with friends. The woman who changed the advert, spoke at the UN, spoke about elevating and finding joy.

 

[taogg]

It is already filmed so not renewed on the strength of the first series, to be honest I find it sad that her life is now filming herself baking cookies with friends. The woman who changed the advert, spoke at the UN, spoke about elevating and finding joy.

I have no issue with people making a living through cooking or spending time with friends. What I don’t like about Meghan is how she self-proclaims and portrays herself with grand titles like 'feminist' and 'champion of human rights and gender equity.' But I don’t see any real actions backing those claims (perhaps I just missed all?). Just giving a nice speech at UN isn’t enough.
If she simply focused on earning a living without all the rhetoric, she probably wouldn’t be as controversial

 

[Hallo girl]

I have no issue with people making a living through cooking or spending time with friends. What I don’t like about Meghan is how she self-proclaims and portrays herself with grand titles like 'feminist' and 'champion of human rights and gender equity.' But I don’t see any real actions backing those claims (perhaps I just missed all?). Just giving a nice speech at UN isn’t enough.
If she simply focused on earning a living without all the rhetoric, she probably wouldn’t be as controversial

To be fair neither have I, it is an honest career not traded on the back of others, I genuinely hope she is successful with her latest endeavour.
Meghan is not my definition of a feminist but that is for another day.

 

[chen bao jun]

One of my good friends who knows I disapprove of some of the Duchess of Sussex' past actions told me yesterday that she is watching the show and it's very fun and soothing. We have a friendly disaster about some of Harry and Meghan 's part choices but she's not a super fan of theirs. She says it's great partly because it's much more fun than watching our contentious, polarized news here right now. Escapism.
I can definitely see that
Here's hoping Meghan gets a lot of escapist watchers. As I said before, I think the best thing for everyone is this show being at least a mild success with Meghan getting the career and attention she craves, doing something that isn't hurtful to anyone, isn't strange (like the semi royal tours), and brings joy into people's lives.
I have to say, a lot of the criticism of the show seems ridiculous. Critics bringing up things now in the past that she, thank God, has stopped mentioning and complaining because she calls herself Mama in the third person ( a common American way for mothers to refer to themselves). I also saw a giant fuss because in a photo of Harry holding Lilibet (on Instagram ) the child did not have on a life vest. I'd assume that was a posed photo, probably not near real water, and not that the baby was in danger, pretty sure Harry knows how to handle himself and the children in and near water. Although maybe there are some that might not know the life belt rule that might look at the photo. In that case though, why not just give a general warning rather than attack?
I still don't like Meghan's past and some recent behavior (and some of Harry's) but I like to take each incident separately; this show has nothing to do with the Oprah interview (which changed me personally from a fan into a questioner), Harry's awful book (I then become a non-fan), the endless lawsuits, etc.
I hope this show will succeed.
And I don't care if she uses Sussex as her last name. As stated before, I get wanting the family to have same name.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And I don't care if she uses Sussex as her last name. As stated before, I get wanting the family to have same name.

I agree it is not particularly notable if the Duchess uses Sussex as her informal surname in daily life per British royal and noble custom (not to mention that many non-royal American entertainers use a surname in their professional and/or daily lives that differs from their legal surname: During the future Duchess's first marriage her legal surname was Engelson while her professional surname remained Markle). However, Sussex was not the only realistic option for sharing a surname with her husband and children. As others mentioned, it would also have been perfectly comprehensible if the four of them had chosen Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor as their shared surname in daily life. (Even in Britain, it seems an increasing number of peerage holders are choosing to use their legal surnames professionally.) Any of those options (Sussex, Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor) would have been a relatively conventional and publicly acceptable choice.

 

[Silverpot]

I agree it is not particularly notable if the Duchess uses Sussex as her informal surname in daily life per British royal and noble custom (not to mention that many non-royal American entertainers use a surname in their professional and/or daily lives that differs from their legal surname: During the future Duchess's first marriage her legal surname was Engelson while her professional surname remained Markle). However, Sussex was not the only realistic option for sharing a surname with her husband and children. As others mentioned, it would also have been perfectly comprehensible if the four of them had chosen Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor as their shared surname in daily life. (Even in Britain, it seems an increasing number of peerage holders are choosing to use their legal surnames professionally.) Any of those options (Sussex, Mountbatten-Windsor or Windsor) would have been a relatively conventional and publicly acceptable choice.

I know this is off topic (sorry) but I'm curious, would Harry still be calling himself Harry Wales if he hadn't got married and obtained a title of his own, when his father no longer is Prince of Wales?

 

[Mbruno]

I know this is off topic (sorry) but I'm curious, would Harry still be calling himself Harry Wales if he hadn't got married and obtained a title of his own, when his father no longer is Prince of Wales?

I don't think so. If he were an unmarried son of the King with no peerage, he would be simply HRH The Prince Harry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I know this is off topic (sorry) but I'm curious, would Harry still be calling himself Harry Wales if he hadn't got married and obtained a title of his own, when his father no longer is Prince of Wales?

If he had not been conferred with a peerage, he would have been formally styled by the Palace as HRH The Prince Henry (or possibly HRH The Prince Harry) after his father succeeded as King. In that scenario, the most tradition-conforming choice for Prince Harry would have been to stop using "Wales" as his unofficial surname, since "Wales" would no longer be part of his official style.

When his uncle Edward was in the same situation, styled as HRH The Prince Edward before receiving a peerage, Edward used Windsor (part of his legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor) as his informal surname for professional work, and that seems like the most sensible option.

However, since this all concerns day-to-day life and not legal documents, it would not cause any issues if Harry preferred to continue using "Wales" as his unofficial surname even after it disappeared from his title. There is precedent for both royals and peers continuing to use the place designation from their old title as their unofficial professional surname even after their title is changed (for example, Prince William of Wales did not immediately stop using "William Wales" when he became Duke of Cambridge, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York have not stopped using "Beatrice York" and "Eugenie York" after becoming Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi).

 

[Toledo]

I have no issue with people making a living through cooking or spending time with friends. What I don’t like about Meghan is how she self-proclaims and portrays herself with grand titles like 'feminist' and 'champion of human rights and gender equity.' But I don’t see any real actions backing those claims (perhaps I just missed all?). Just giving a nice speech at UN isn’t enough.
If she simply focused on earning a living without all the rhetoric, she probably wouldn’t be as controversial

Meghan a feminist? Her entire identity is based on being married to rich guy that happens to be the son of a king. Can she name five former UK kings/queens that came before king Charles?

Well, I doubt Harry can't either, he seems to have zero knowledge of British history unless he is asked to say the names of the polo horses he has mounted since his younger days.

That name change, reserved for the episode for over a year, sheds light on why all of the sudden and a year after filming the show she is now known as Meghan Sussex. I was waiting for Mindy to snap at her and say "did you also dropped your real name, Rachel, too?"

I smell her need for marketing her royalty over everyone in California a mile away. It's just that, marketing. Why didn't Mindy mention any of this since the scripted episode was shot? Why now we have the reveal at Netflix and not a press release from Rachel...I mean Meghan Markle Sussex until now?

For starters, had she tried to market Harry's Windsor-Mountbatten into a jar of edibles or goat milk soap her royal Father-In-Law would have put an end to this nonsense just like Queen Elizabeth did when she told them stop with the marketing. Sussex as the next trademark seems more approachable, until you see that Prince Harry doesn't seem to be included into this decision.

Has he been introduced recently as Harry Sussex anywhere recently? Did he get the memo his wife is now the decision maker in his surname, the kids' surname, the Windsor family naming conventions all decided from her office desk at Montecito?

For someone that escaped the royal life and their non-existing systemic racism, she sure attaches her identity to her Father-in-Law's royal aura tighter than the face hugging crab we saw in the Aliens movies.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan dropped the name Rachel a very long time ago when she became an actress. Must be at least twenty years. So there would be no reason surely for her to retain it. A good proportion of actors and others in the public eye change their names or drop forenames for professional purposes and their adopted names remain for their lifetimes, even if they use their married names in their private lives.

And we don’t know who decided to use Sussex in their private lives, any more than we know who between Charles and Diana decided William and Harry would be William and Harry Wales at school (and later in the army.)

What we do know is that Meghan legitimately the daughter in law of King Charles, just as Harry is one of the monarch’s two sons. She is, as many here have pointed out, perfectly entitled to state what her family call themselves as a family, by Harry’s ducal title.

If Meghan is unknowlegable about past monarchs, and we don’t know whether she is, then as an American she joins countless millions of her fellow citizens in that lack of knowledge. And actually there are almost certainly many millions of Britons who wouldn’t be able to go back through the royal line to Queen Victoria and would become confused by the 1936 abdication and the Georges.

Harry has some knowledge of British history at least, as he knew personally (which none of us presumably do) Queen Elizabeth his grandmother, his grandfather her Consort, and his great-grandmother the QM. And Harry attended as a family member the last Coronation, his father’s.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I think people need to realise the feminist movement gave women the concept of choice and freedom and with that, it gave us the autonomy and power to decide our own fate. It gave us the ability to choose our surnames, choice and freedom of voting, choice and freedom to own property, choice and freedom to initiate divorce and so on. Labelling any woman a fake feminist is wrong - our foremothers gave us the greatest gift, which is the ability to chose what we wanted. If Meghan has changed her name to Sussex, she had the ability to do so. 50 years ago, your name changed the moment you married - if you liked it or not.

I have watched three episodes of the series and as other have said, it is light entertainment. She is a very good presenter and obviously loves the lifestyle/cooking genre - she is extremely creative and artistic and it comes very naturally to her. But some of the "conversation" with her guest lacked flow and were unnatural. I just wished she stopped referring Harry as "my husband", and just say his name!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think people need to realise the feminist movement gave women the concept of choice and freedom and with that, it gave us the autonomy and power to decide our own fate. It gave us the ability to choose our surnames, choice and freedom of voting, choice and freedom to own property, choice and freedom to initiate divorce and so on. Labelling any woman a fake feminist is wrong - our foremothers gave us the greatest gift, which is the ability to chose what we wanted. If Meghan has changed her name to Sussex, she had the ability to do so. 50 years ago, your name changed the moment you married - if you liked it or not.

I don't think the posters in this thread have argued that the act of taking her husband's surname is what qualifies the Duchess of Sussex as a "fake feminist". The closest to that which I have seen is criticism (elsewhere) saying that her emphasis on the "meaningfulness" of sharing a name with her children could be interpreted as indirectly disparaging the choices of married mothers who kept their surnames after marriage even if it meant not sharing a name with their children.

Unfortunately, in the British royal family, women's names continue to be changed the moment they marry whether they like it or not. Princess Eugenie made it rather clear that she would prefer to keep the York title/name after marriage (I will not go into detail in this thread as it would be off-topic, but sources may be found in the Jack Brooksbank title thread) and continued to call herself Princess Eugenie of York during her first couple years of marriage. Despite her wishes, ever since her marriage, official communications issued by the Palace (other than from the Duke of York's office) immediately ceased referring to her as "of York" and instead called her Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank (a form of the name which she has never chosen to use herself). If the Duchess of Sussex was given the choice to keep or drop her maiden name on marriage, then she was better treated than the born princesses in the British royal family. Her sharing a name with her children will end if and when Princess Lilibet of Sussex marries, as Lilibet will lose the "of Sussex" upon marriage.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I don't think the posters in this thread have argued that the act of taking her husband's surname is what qualifies the Duchess of Sussex as a "fake feminist". The closest to that which I have seen is criticism (elsewhere) saying that her emphasis on the "meaningfulness" of sharing a name with her children could be interpreted as indirectly disparaging the choices of married mothers who kept their surnames after marriage even if it meant not sharing a name with their children.

Unfortunately, in the British royal family, women's names continue to be changed the moment they marry whether they like it or not. Princess Eugenie made it rather clear that she would prefer to keep the York title/name after marriage (I will not go into detail in this thread as it would be off-topic, but sources may be found in the Jack Brooksbank title thread) and continued to call herself Princess Eugenie of York during her first couple years of marriage. Despite her wishes, ever since her marriage, official communications issued by the Palace (other than from the Duke of York's office) immediately ceased referring to her as "of York" and instead called her Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank (a form of the name which she has never chosen to use herself). If the Duchess of Sussex was given the choice to keep or drop her maiden name on marriage, then she was better treated than the born princesses in the British royal family. Her sharing a name with her children will end if and when Princess Lilibet of Sussex marries, as Lilibet will lose the "of Sussex" upon marriage.

What you're describing is convention vs legal. By convention, Meghan is referred to as HRH The Duchess of Sussex and her children are prince/ss of Sussex and this is only in the UK. Legally, she is still either Ms Rachel Markle or Mrs Rachel Mountbatten-Windsor in the US. From what I read, under Californian law, she can choose to use her maiden name or married name, and if the married couple wishes, they may nominate another name. She may have changed her surname, and the ones of the children with Harry's approval, to Sussex - we won't know

 

[Hallo girl]

Meghan dropped the name Rachel a very long time ago when she became an actress. Must be at least twenty years. So there would be no reason surely for her to retain it. A good proportion of actors and others in the public eye change their names or drop forenames for professional purposes and their adopted names remain for their lifetimes, even if they use their married names in their private lives.

And we don’t know who decided to use Sussex in their private lives, any more than we know who between Charles and Diana decided William and Harry would be William and Harry Wales at school (and later in the army.)

What we do know is that Meghan legitimately the daughter in law of King Charles, just as Harry is one of the monarch’s two sons. She is, as many here have pointed out, perfectly entitled to state what her family call themselves as a family, by Harry’s ducal title.

If Meghan is unknowlegable about past monarchs, and we don’t know whether she is, then as an American she joins countless millions of her fellow citizens in that lack of knowledge. And actually there are almost certainly many millions of Britons who wouldn’t be able to go back through the royal line to Queen Victoria and would become confused by the 1936 abdication and the Georges.

Harry has some knowledge of British history at least, as he knew personally (which none of us presumably do) Queen Elizabeth his grandmother, his grandfather her Consort, and his great-grandmother the QM. And Harry attended as a family member the last Coronation, his father’s.

And he treated them well didn't he. !!!!
People who had never met them personally showed more respect and love than their son/ grandson did.

I think people need to realise the feminist movement gave women the concept of choice and freedom and with that, it gave us the autonomy and power to decide our own fate. It gave us the ability to choose our surnames, choice and freedom of voting, choice and freedom to own property, choice and freedom to initiate divorce and so on. Labelling any woman a fake feminist is wrong - our foremothers gave us the greatest gift, which is the ability to chose what we wanted. If Meghan has changed her name to Sussex, she had the ability to do so. 50 years ago, your name changed the moment you married - if you liked it or not.

I have watched three episodes of the series and as other have said, it is light entertainment. She is a very good presenter and obviously loves the lifestyle/cooking genre - she is extremely creative and artistic and it comes very naturally to her. But some of the "conversation" with her guest lacked flow and were unnatural. I just wished she stopped referring Harry as "my husband", and just say his name!

As you say as women we are entitled to chose what we want , and to have our own opinions is surely part of that, so it is not up to you or anybody else to tell them they are wrong in their opinion.
At the end of the day that is what it is an opinion. Just like others on this forum have opinions about other royals their life choices / behaviours or even the British Media for that matter.
In my opinion Meghan does not represent someone whom I would call a true feminist.
Walking down the aisle without a man on your arm is not enough for me. I could add more but I will put it on hold for the moment.

 

[Mbruno]

I think people need to realise the feminist movement gave women the concept of choice and freedom and with that, it gave us the autonomy and power to decide our own fate. It gave us the ability to choose our surnames, choice and freedom of voting, choice and freedom to own property, choice and freedom to initiate divorce and so on. Labelling any woman a fake feminist is wrong - our foremothers gave us the greatest gift, which is the ability to chose what we wanted. If Meghan has changed her name to Sussex, she had the ability to do so. 50 years ago, your name changed the moment you married - if you liked it or not.

I suppose the question is that we don't know if Meghan legally changed her name and the names that are on her children's birth certificates, or if Meghan Sussex is just a social (or a stage) name she adopted.

I don't know what the procedure is in California to change the birth certificate names of your children for example. I would appreciate if anyone could clarify.

 

[Kenya]

Forbes has ratings news: ‘With Love, Meghan’ Ratings: Netflix Show Bows To Lower Viewership Than ‘Harry & Meghan’

Viewers like Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, but they like her better when she’s with her husband, Prince Harry.

The woman formerly known as Meghan Markle debuted her new show, With Love, Meghan, on Netflix on March 4. It bowed to solid viewership, but the audience was nowhere near the big turnout who tuned in for Harry & Meghan in 2022.

With Love, Meghan drew 526,000 households, according to data culled by Samba TV, a TV tech company that measures audience data. Those numbers include live plus five-day viewership of the program since its premiere.

By comparison, that was barely a quarter of the viewership that Harry & Meghan drew in a smaller window (live plus three days) when it bowed. The show posted 2.1 million households.

I don't think anyone can be surprised With Love didn't have the ratings of the docuseries. Meghan and Harry could make another show about their royal experience today and it wouldn't reach the ratings of Harry & Meghan. But I am kind of surprised that only half a million people watched over five days. I expected a rating in the millions, at least, since, for better or worse, Meghan drives interest. It will be interesting to see how the rating correlate with product sales (whenever the products start selling).

 

[Toledo]

As you say as women we are entitled to chose what we want , and to have our own opinions is surely part of that, so it is not up to you or anybody else to tell them they are wrong in their opinion.
At the end of the day that is what it is an opinion. Just like others on this forum have opinions about other royals their life choices / behaviours or even the British Media for that matter.
In my opinion Meghan does not represent someone whom I would call a true feminist.
Walking down the aisle without a man on your arm is not enough for me. I could add more but I will put it on hold for the moment.

Rachel Meghan Markle Windsor-Mountbatten Sussex is, from my observations, a very progressive and independent woman that has control of her narrative and imposes it on the family around her. From her mother who was shown on the clip almost invisible on the back, to Harry, now legally known as a possessive pronoun 'my husband' on every mention.

Is that a feminist by modern XX Century takes of a very dominant personality regardless of gender? If I placed her in historical terms, with matching counterparts, I could see her personality traits come to match people like Napoleon's sister Pauline Bonaparte or Czarina Alexandra of Russia. And also an historical favorite of mine, the very spoiled Carlota of Spain/ Queen of Portugal and (pre-empire) Brazil, that controlled her husband to a point she tried to create her own Spanish empire in Argentina mainly because she wanted to control everything via her husband. Had she been around today competing on ratings with Meghan she, too, would have a Netflix series making Spanish Tapas on a rental set and Mindy showing up at the door at the sound of a castanet's doorbell. Imagine Mindy asking Carlota "did you change your name from Carlota Brasil to Carlota Brazil with a 'Z' for the USA market?

Yet, I would never place Meghan at the level of a Princess Anne, the Duchess of Edinburg and even the Duchess of York who became an independently wealthy woman always finding work and projects to motivate other women do the same.

In terms of feminism, which is a very broad subject with so many layers from conservative to liberal, I fit Meghan into the Carlota of Portugal/Brazil category. Very dominant personality over a weak individual and I don't see her care very much about other women that are now cancelled as her past circle of friends.

Anyone can stand on a stage and do great motivational speeches in her Loro Piana cashmere sweater paired with a set of Zara bottoms and a striped Jenni Kayne jumper, but after she steps off the stage what is the follow up on it? Did her trip to Colombia or Nigeria changed the life of little girls that approached her? Has she Instagram that she is in touch with them, or her travel sponsors, for follow up on the goals she preached about? I mean, how busy is she not to say 'hi, happy new year to you' to the vice-president of Colombia?

Feminist? Yes, 100 %. Self-Centered? Yes, 100%. I just don't see anything that comes out of her mouth in those speeches that gets any traction afterward as I give her, at every moment, the benefit of the doubt hoping that she will prove me wrong. Hoping her to do something that can stand on the solid ground besides the name dropping, empty words and attaching herself to other people's on-going projects.

But the year is still early.

 

[Leopoldine]

I finished watching the "With Love" series. As written previously, I support Meghan in the project.

I do have a few opinions that might improve Season 2

The soundtrack is too loud and "Goodfellas". Maybe a tamped-down Herb Alpert vibe. What I got from Season 1 was M's love of hot spicy food. That works with Herb Alpert. Or music that sounds like him. License fees can blow the budget. However, the scene where M and Vicky were trying to flip a pan of potstickers -- how much better would that be if Herb's "Spanish Flea" was playing? With clever editing, they could have had some fun with that. Worth the fee.

She shouldn't gather her hair in front of her shoulders when prepping food.

She should enunciate better. Specifically one circumstance, She pronounces "street" like "shtreet" . Similar words beginning in "str" or "dr" are also lacking the linguistic precision. It is surprising as she is very articulate when it comes to the letter "T" and other consonants. As someone who is putting herself forward in a public manner in a rather instructional role she should think about this. I don't think she wants her patois to distract from her message. She's out there as a supposedly refined presenter of the fun and elegant joyful things in life that are available to everyone. She is not Tracy Morgan bellowing about waffles and bird poop.

 

[soapstar]

I don't think anyone can be surprised With Love didn't have the ratings of the docuseries. Meghan and Harry could make another show about their royal experience today and it wouldn't reach the ratings of Harry & Meghan. But I am kind of surprised that only half a million people watched over five days. I expected a rating in the millions, at least, since, for better or worse, Meghan drives interest. It will be interesting to see how the rating correlate with product sales (whenever the products start selling).

I’m a little surprised the ratings were that low too. I also read that after only 6 days, it’s dropped out of the top 10 in most of the countries it was in. I recall their docuseries being in the top 10 for weeks.

I suppose the question is that we don't know if Meghan legally changed her name and the names that are on her children's birth certificates, or if Meghan Sussex is just a social (or a stage) name she adopted.

I don't know what the procedure is in California to change the birth certificate names of your children for example. I would appreciate if anyone could clarify.

In order to change your name in California, you have to file a petition with the court and then publish a notice in a newspaper. That’s how the media knew one of Angelina Jolie’s daughters had changed her last name.

So if Meghan had legally changed her last name to Sussex, we would have heard about it.

They say the best revenge is to live well. Meghan through her show has shown that she is indeed living very well. Her show is pretty much review proof, between her dedicated fan base and people hate watching, for sure she is getting plenty of views. Her show is top 10 in many different countries and is being renewed for a 2nd season (What a clap back to those headline about her losing her Netflix deal!).

I’m always amazed at the creativity of the criticism of Meghan. The goal post is constantly moving. Criticism about her show being not appropriate given the current political and social climate makes me laugh. I’m sorry, was there world peace when Martha Stewart was on TV?

The show was originally picked up for 16 episodes and then split into 2 seasons. The true indicator will be if they actually renew the show for season 3.

Martha Stewart had her fans, but she was most definitely criticized for being out of touch. SNL used to make fun of her all the time for it. The media called her cold and she was even labeled the “Queen of Mean.” She also got a ton of criticism from women who said she was promoting an unattainable and elitist lifestyle. There’s a documentary about her life and it talks about all of the hate she got. It wasn’t until recently that her reputation improved.

 

[Kenya]

Yeah and, ironically, I think Martha's reputation improved only after she went to prison. I wouldn't recommend to Meghan that she go quite to the same extremes, LOL. But I think Martha approached her post-prison persona with a sense of humor about herself that endeared her to people. I think that's what happened with Gwyneth Paltrow too, when she became less self-serious and leaned into how ridiculous Goop is.

I suspect the same strategy could work for Meghan. But, as demonstrated by how taken aback she was when Mariah Carey called her a diva on Archetypes, she has no sense of humor about herself. And she's so obsessed with her title, faux-royal tours, and her imagined status as a global leader and philanthropist that I don't think she could lean into the sillier aspects of her life and the tips she gives on the show.

 

[HRHHermione]

suspect the same strategy could work for Meghan. But, as demonstrated by how taken aback she was when Mariah Carey called her a diva on Archetypes, she has no sense of humor about herself. And she's so obsessed with her title, faux-royal tours, and her imagined status as a global leader and philanthropist that I don't think she could lean into the sillier aspects of her life and the tips she gives on the show.

I have long thought one of the reasons Meghan had such a bad time of it in the British press is that self-serious air and lack of humor about herself.

 

[irish_royalist]

I think part of Meghan's unpopularity is her complete inability to read the room. Of course she should be able to make a lifestyle show for Netflix with various recipes and table decorations, if that's what she wants to do with her life. But to bring up the surname Sussex, when she has shown no respect to the institution and people who bestowed that designation upon her and her family, shows a complete lack of tact and intuition. In my opinion!

 

[Healthy Sceptic]

Wow, do they ever! IMDB gives it a 2.7/10 with 61% rating it at 1-2 as opposed to 32% at 10. Rotten Tomatoes says it is 72% rotten.

Agreed that Netflix is just trying to recoup money at this point. The personality transplant comment had me rolling.

IMDB rating has gone up to 2.9/10 in the few days, but Rotten Tomatoes says it is 73% rotten as apposed to 72% previously.

Netflix is hurrying in a second season to reclaim their investment as quickly as possible, not because of any public demand.

Meghan had better be putting out some product to go with this show soon or she's going to miss the boat. I doubt it goes three seasons.

 

[HRHHermione]

Meghan has announced the launch of a new podcast.

Meghan Markle Announces New Podcast, and the Title Promises She’ll Spill Bold 'Confessions'

Meghan Markle announces a new podcast — "Confessions of a Female Founder" — that promises bold "confessions" and candid conversations, offering a unique look into her entrepreneurial journey

people.com

 

[Erin9]

Meghan has announced the launch of a new podcast.

Meghan Markle Announces New Podcast, and the Title Promises She’ll Spill Bold 'Confessions'

Meghan Markle announces a new podcast — "Confessions of a Female Founder" — that promises bold "confessions" and candid conversations, offering a unique look into her entrepreneurial journey

people.com

Well I’m not surprised this podcast is also (partially) about her! Lol

I do kind of wonder what kinds of mistakes she’ll admit to. This has been a VERY bumby, mistake ridden road. I’m not interested enough to listen though.