Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[Vagabond]

There should be nothing controversial about an American citizen's encouraging people to vote, especially one who has lived in the U.S. for most of her life and lives here now. If she were to encourage people not to vote, that would be controversial, but the converse is not. It just isn't.

 

[puglover]

I am a Canadian of British ancestry. My mother was born in England and I was raised with a great love and respect for the royal family. Every Christmas of my life I have watched and listened to the Queen on Christmas Day. In Canada, we have a Governor General and each province has a Lieutenant Governor who attend to the ceremonial duties of the Queen. I believe interest in them contributes billions to the British economy. Of course, many Canadians do not enjoy this connection to our past and would like to end it and I do understand their opinion. In my history, very few of the royals not in line to inherit the throne have done too well - beginning with Princess Margaret. I applaud Harry and Meghan choosing a different path and future for their family. Encouraging people to vote seems only constructive to me and certainly in line with royal sentiments. May they choose wisely and build their "brand" into a positive in the world. Changing countries, cultures, friends, and life style appears very challenging no mater who you are, and I would not be surprised if Harry has some struggles behind the scenes and I have stated many times I hope the rift as it were is temporary and Harry and William and their families become close again, even if it is over the miles.

 

[MsZem]

In my history, very few of the royals not in line to inherit the throne have done too well - beginning with Princess Margaret. I applaud Harry and Meghan choosing a different path and future for their family.

Andrew is obviously another example, but who else has not done well? Anne and Edward appear to be just fine, as do their kids and even the (no longer York) princesses. And I don't know about the Earl of Snowdon, but Lady Sarah Chatto doesn't seem to be struggling, either.

Also, out of the kindness of my heart, here is what Sarah's son Arthur has been up to:

Princess Margaret’s grandson, Arthur Chatto, triumphantly returns from epic charity row

His mother, Lady Sarah Chatto, brother, Samuel, and glamorous girlfriend Lizzie Friend were all at St Katharine Docks to meet the triumphant quartet of rowers on return from their impressive 38-day feat

www.tatler.com

More generally, I'm confused by the argument that I sometimes come across that Harry and Meghan are doing something groundbreaking and modern. They're not the first royals to move abroad or try to build lives beyond being working royals, or to pursue charitable initiatives. Balletmaus and I have both mentioned Princess Madeleine of Sweden - who kept her titles, but lives in Florida, is married to a private citizen, and basically does her own thing (and her own Instagram) while focusing on the causes that matter to her and making the occasional public appearance in Sweden.

 

[Lorac]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/amp31969809/prince-harry-could-lose-royal-titles-if-he-becomes-an-american-citizen/

The Us constitution clearly states If someone wants to become a naturalized citizen they have to renounce hereditary titles. It’s not like this wasn’t an issue at the time of the Revolution now Meghan was Born a US citizen but Harry would absolutely have to renounce.

Quoting Marie Claire as a point of law doesn't make it true. The US would like everyone who applies to be a citizen to renounce all prior citizenships but cannot force anyone to if the country you come from allows you to hold another citizenship along with any others you choose to acquire. The UK allows people to hold other citizenships along with retaining your UK citizenship. The US has no way of forcing someone who has hereditary titles to renounce them if they apply for US citizenship if the country they come from allows them to hold those titles. At worse the US could try to insist that when in the US Harry - if he chooses to apply for a US citizenship - doesn't use his titles - but they have no way of forcing him to renounce his UK titles if he chooses to retain his UK citizenship.

 

[mella]

I think concerns about the use of hereditary titles, land ownership, wealth, status and power go well beyond jealousy in the modern world.

Well quite... and yet the matter of royal titles is one of great drama where M&H are concerned and of no consequence when discussing the other Royals and the HoL that we pay to assist in supporting.

For my part it's really not relevant if they are "senior royals" doing "official" business - Which is basically royal tours which are almost entirely for political purposes and supporting charities, or non senior royals supporting the charities they prefer and encouraging people to vote (which is apparently too political on the scale of politics for royals). Either way... the tax payer is footing the bill for not much more than pretty photo shoots. Given that the UK still operates a society the separates by class and title I think H&M are the least of the "problem".

The more i think about it the more i find this notion that the royals dont get involved in politics laughable. There has been more than one (I think 3) royal tours since the Brexit vote aimed and "easing the way" with select EU countries. When the royals tour (in or out of the commonwealth) they meet political leaders. Come on already!!! They may not traditionally comment on UK party politics but they are part of the UK political toolkit.

I understand the comments here from US posters about why encouraging voting could now be seen as political. But I'm baffled by the fact that it's more of an issue to berate MM for straying into territory that is now murky, than it is that the current president has corrupted the system so much as to make the territory murky to start with!!!

 

[taf2002]

I think they do. The latest arty photos of Meghan draped over outdoor chairs in a lush garden of a mansion are only missing a servant fanning her with a palm frond. Which is fine if it’s her own money. But this is all money sourced from marriage into hereditary class systems and entrenched inequality. It’s the most bourgeois thing I’ve seen in a while. Yet somehow she’s a poster child for fighting inequality?

bourgeois = of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.

If you're going to use "big words" then it would be useful if you actually knew what they mean. So is she an entitled plutocrat * or a middle class bourgeois?

* a person whose power derives from their wealth.

 

[Jenny]

I think it's great that Meghan is trying to use her celebrity and influence to further causes that are important to her. From what I can tell she's been involved in charity and community work and advocacy from a young age, continued to do so before she met Harry, and likely now sees an opportunity given the massive and fervent amount of followers she's gained since she got together with Harry. All good.

The issue for me is the use of the title. Sure, it was given to her fair and square, but given that she's made it clear she's not interested in being part of the firm (maybe the family, but not what it stands for and the work it does), then what's with the title? I'm not saying forsake it (or that it should be taken from her), I'm saying that there's a time and place, like when she is in England and involved in family business or formal occasions.

Further, for someone who seems to want to focus on empowering women, gender equality, inspiring the next generation and all that, then again, what's with the title? On the one hand it screams of class distinction, even putting her on a higher pedestal because she has a big fancy title. On the other, she only got it because of who she married. Is that a good message for young women? Does it support her desired image of a strong, independent woman? To me, it doesn't.

The fact that she's using it in this new life, in another country, and in association with the work she's doing and the brand she's building, is contrary to everything she supposedly stands for, in my opinion.

 

[MacMadame]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/amp31969809/prince-harry-could-lose-royal-titles-if-he-becomes-an-american-citizen/

The Us constitution clearly states If someone wants to become a naturalized citizen they have to renounce hereditary titles. It’s not like this wasn’t an issue at the time of the Revolution now Meghan was Born a US citizen but Harry would absolutely have to renounce.

There are US citizens who have been given royal titles. Here is a partial list:

List of Americans who held noble titles from other countries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The US constitution bares the US from giving anyone a title. It doesn't bare anyone from having a title given to them by another country.

Someone like Princess Beatrice has a quiet office job. Which is very different.

It's not that different. She gets invited to things and photographed at them just because she's a royal. She was going to have her wedding televised and her sister's wedding was televised. So she gets benefits from being a royal while also living a quieter life than William and Kate. But not as quiet a life as you or I.

So we don't care so much if she's sitting around with it because it's not like we have that much respect for the franchise anyway.

True, dat. The only reason I am interested in these threads at all is that I am completely fascinated by a divorced American with Black ancestry marrying into the BRF and I want to see what happens. If it ends up destroying the idea of royalty and causing big changes in the UK to get rid of their monarchy or making it largely toothless and no longer paid for by the citizens, I'd be all for that.

what's with the title?

It gets her more followers so she has a bigger platform.

That doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

 

[Jenny]

It gets her more followers so she has a bigger platform.

That doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

Which is exactly my point.

 

[skategal]

IIRC, Meghan has been quite open about wanting to use her platform as a member of the Royal Family to do good in the world.

Asking her fellow countrymen and women to become more engaged in their future through voting is part of that good.

 

[becca]

MacMadame. I don’t think it’s for although could be wrong for a US citizen to be for or against Britain getting rid of their monarchy.

It’s their choice. Don’t have a problem with Meghan encouraging voting do with the way she did it its clear she is supporting a side. “Your complicit.” Isn’t neutral language.

 

[taf2002]

Over the years it's been said in many different ways "if you don't vote, don't complain" which is IOW "you're complicit". You're really reaching for something to criticize her for. In fact, all your posts come off as spiteful. I don't understand where this is coming from.

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

MacMadame. I don’t think it’s for although could be wrong for a US citizen to be for or against Britain getting rid of their monarchy.

It’s their choice. Don’t have a problem with Meghan encouraging voting do with the way she did it its clear she is supporting a side. “Your complicit.” Isn’t neutral language.

Over the years it's been said in many different ways "if you don't vote, don't complain" which is IOW "you're complicit". You're really reaching for something to criticize her for. In fact, all your posts come off as spiteful. I don't understand where this is coming from.

One could argue, @becca, that the phrase involving complicity might be interpreted as supporting the argument that any undesirable impacts on society that result from not voting could lead people to consider those who don't vote as complicit in the occurrence of those impacts. That argument could serve as a reason of motivation to vote as a societal responsibility for potential non-voters of any political persuasion - so, for me at least, it passes the test of neutral language.

Oh, and by the way, I agree with what @taf2002 posted.

 

[becca]

I don’t mean to come accross as spiteful. You may be right but I don’t think language was ideal. Given that she is using a royal title I do think she could have used better language choice but that’s just me.

 

[MacMadame]

MacMadame. I don’t think it’s for although could be wrong for a US citizen to be for or against Britain getting rid of their monarchy.

Um, what?

 

[starrynight]

MacMadame. I don’t think it’s for although could be wrong for a US citizen to be for or against Britain getting rid of their monarchy.

I agree that it's always useful to be aware that it can be problematic for an outsider to tell another country how to manage their own affairs.

For example, I wouldn't tell a Spanish person my opinion on their government because I don't live there and frankly what entitles me to an opinion? It's why I don't really hold too many opinions on the merits of the various candidates of USA politics, because again, I don't live there and what would I know?

 

[becca]

Um, what?

Maybe your a British citizen but you said you supported the monarchy going down if your a British citizen your entitled to that Opinion I feel it’s up to the British

 

[starrynight]

I think there can be a lot of culture clash too. What seems aggressive speech to one culture might be perfectly normal to the next. Some cultures use lots of ‘politeness’ (which is often not genuine) and other cultures just get to the point and are very direct. All of this can be misinterpreted across cultures. What makes you great in one culture can make you a dipstick in others.

I think this is why the advisers for the Royals try to manage them so carefully. They have to present something which is generally acceptable to the 54 countries of the commonwealth.

I got called names earlier for commenting that Meghans expressions were aggressive speech. I accept that in another culture it may be a perfectly normal way of speaking. I also appreciated the useful comments of other posters which described the USA culture as being very different to my own, which obviously shapes the way everyone interprets the situation.

And I also accept that the British culture is again very different to the Australian culture.

 

[canbelto]

I think there can be a lot of culture clash too. What seems aggressive speech to one culture might be perfectly normal to the next. Some cultures use lots of ‘politeness’ (which is often not genuine) and other cultures just get to the point and are very direct. All of this can be misinterpreted across cultures. What makes you great in one culture can make you a dipstick in others.

I think this is why the advisers for the Royals try to manage them so carefully. They have to present something which is generally acceptable to the 54 countries of the commonwealth.

I got called names earlier for commenting that Meghans expressions were aggressive speech. I accept that in another culture it may be a perfectly normal way of speaking. I also appreciated the useful comments of other posters which described the USA culture as being very different to my own, which obviously shapes the way everyone interprets the situation.

And I also accept that the British culture is again very different to the Australian culture.

So you admit you don't know much about American culture but still feel that it's okay to call Meghan's speech "aggressive" when it's actually very typical "get out the vote" jargon? Okay.

 

[MacMadame]

So you admit you don't know much about American culture but still feel that it's okay to call Meghan's speech "aggressive" when it's actually very typical "get out the vote" jargon? Okay.

And when people point this out, WE need to get out of our bubbles and understand how others see us. Instead of others accepting education on how our system works.

Okay.

 

[kittyjake5]

Oh my this thread is getting a little snarky.

 

[starrynight]

So you admit you don't know much about American culture but still feel that it's okay to call Meghan's speech "aggressive" when it's actually very typical "get out the vote" jargon? Okay.

It’s an illustration of the difference between Meghan being Duchess of Sussex and a representative of Britain and the Commonwealth as opposed to a simple USA citizen speaking solely as an American.

To the people she represents as Duchess of Sussex, yes it does sit differently to cultural norms. It’s very USA as you said.

Which is where the culture clash is showing. This is the balance of styling oneself as a Duchess of the United Kingdom whilst operating in the USA under USA cultural norms. The USA is the world's big super power, and it's influence and power does sit uncomfortably with many other countries.

The conclusion I draw from this is that people consider Meghan to now be a representative for the USA. If that’s the case then it’s time for that Duchess title to go.

The fact that she's using it in this new life, in another country, and in association with the work she's doing and the brand she's building, is contrary to everything she supposedly stands for, in my opinion.

I agree with this.

 

[overedge]

The issue for me is the use of the title. Sure, it was given to her fair and square, but given that she's made it clear she's not interested in being part of the firm (maybe the family, but not what it stands for and the work it does), then what's with the title? I'm not saying forsake it (or that it should be taken from her), I'm saying that there's a time and place, like when she is in England and involved in family business or formal occasions.

Further, for someone who seems to want to focus on empowering women, gender equality, inspiring the next generation and all that, then again, what's with the title? On the one hand it screams of class distinction, even putting her on a higher pedestal because she has a big fancy title. On the other, she only got it because of who she married. Is that a good message for young women? Does it support her desired image of a strong, independent woman? To me, it doesn't.

The fact that she's using it in this new life, in another country, and in association with the work she's doing and the brand she's building, is contrary to everything she supposedly stands for, in my opinion.

This X 1000.

 

[puglover]

As I understand it, to acquire American citizenship you must make an oath which states: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". Three of my children have done that but as Canada does not recognize this and does not take away your citizenship, they now have dual citizenship as do their children who were all born in the States. If this is indeed the case for all, that wording would seem very problematic for a member of the British royal family. I would assume Harry could remain a resident alien or whatever they call you - but I do believe should the American spouse die, the inheritance tax becomes very tricky if they own jointly a business based in the U.S.

 

[starrynight]

And when people point this out, WE need to get out of our bubbles and understand how others see us. Instead of others accepting education on how our system works.

Okay.

The only thing I'm trying to do here is explain that there are other world views outside of the USA experience. The whole rest of the world is forcibly educated about USA cultural norms. A little bit of reciprocal interest wouldn't hurt, but lol what can you do?

It's just that as this thread is about royals of Britain and the Commonwealth, the cultural differences are really relevant to understanding the pickle that Harry and Meghan are in. It's the only reason I'm banging on about it.

I completely understand that Meghan is probably the American Dream. She ticks all the boxes.

 

[Lorac]

As I understand it, to acquire American citizenship you must make an oath which states: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". Three of my children have done that but as Canada does not recognize this and does not take away your citizenship, they now have dual citizenship as do their children who were all born in the States. If this is indeed the case for all, that wording would seem very problematic for a member of the British royal family. I would assume Harry could remain a resident alien or whatever they call you - but I do believe should the American spouse die, the inheritance tax becomes very tricky if they own jointly a business based in the U.S.

As I have stated a couple of times the UK - like Canada - doesn't recognise this either and also allows dual citizenship unless you actually go to a UK embassy and go through the process of renouncing your UK citizenship which I believe includes removing your allegiance to the current reigning monarch. Can you imagine the uproar that would cause here in the UK?! Of course if Harry decides to take US citizenship whilst retaining his UK citizenship - which is the norm - then the oath would be widely reported in the press anyway and could cause all sorts of negative press for him. I suspect Harry will remain on - or firstly apply for - a green card for a few years before any citizenship decision is made - if ever as I know several Brits from when I lived in the US who have been there for decades and have never taken the citizenship step.

 

[antmanb]

I don’t mean to come accross as spiteful. You may be right but I don’t think language was ideal. Given that she is using a royal title I do think she could have used better language choice but that’s just me.

the idea that you, someone who can barely string a sentence together, is arguing about how language has been used incorrectly is truly laughable.

And I understand and agree with anyone questioning Meghan Markle's use of a hereditary title when trying to support charities and work that is supposed to be fighting inequities. What I completely disagree with is the idea that by telling people to vote she has broken some custom around the royal family not making political statements because that's simply BS.

 

[starrynight]

I think people are more worked up about the voting thing, because it's very symbolic of them moving into issues that are exclusively American and are the territory of an American celebrity and not a royal. While one can argue if it is technically political, a British royal would normally not involve themselves in any aspect of a foreign election (what reason could they have?). But Meghan and Harry are not really royals any more and the British/Commonwealth connection has ended, and there is the distinction.

Of course, (unless some massive change occurs) there's no way that Meghan and Harry will ever be back in the UK performing official duties. That ship has sailed, and I think that the more exclusively American their causes become, the clearer that reality is that it's truly all over. After all, this is a previously very popular prince breaking up with the British and Commonwealth, and I'm not surprised people are upset about it.

I think the whole process would be much easier if a clean break was to happen. It's being dragged out like this. And those titles don't make sense in America and they don't make sense when paired with celebrity causes and posturing. For example, it totally contradicted Meghan saying things like 'Women should be linked and not ranked' whilst styling herself as the rank of Duchess.

However, potentially at the one year review, all of this will be sorted out. I expect at that point, the last of the British commitments will be wound up and the titles will be moth-balled.

 

[overedge]

IIRC, Meghan has been quite open about wanting to use her platform as a member of the Royal Family to do good in the world.

Asking her fellow countrymen and women to become more engaged in their future through voting is part of that good.

It is, but if that's who she's appealing to, IMO it would be more effective to do that without the "Duchess of Sussex" title. Apparently she herself is OK with using it, since it's on the video she released. But "Duchess of Sussex" has no meaning or status in the US, other than respecting it as a title from another country's system.

Like @Jenny said, either she wants the title or she doesn't. She isn't credible when she talks about how repressive (my paraphrase) the UK monarchy is, while still using the title she got from it to gain attention.

Personally, given the number of people wondering if she's still a US citizen, I think she would be way more effective in encouraging voting with a message like, "I'm Meghan Markle, and although I married a member of the British royal family, I am still a US citizen and a US resident, and am proud to be able to vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Having the right to vote is very important to me and here's why..."

 

[manhn]

If she wants to have it both ways, fine by me. I don’t care that much for the Monarchy, but I still pay as much taxes towards it as any other Canadian. If she thinks the Monarchy is oppressive (what, it isn’t?) but still takes advantage of that position by, OHMYGAWD!, encouraging people to vote, then oh well.