Just call me Harry. (Everything Harry & Meghan)

[canbelto]

Gosh from seeing everything the USA members post on here, it seems to me that everything and anything to do with an election (or even anything) in the USA is political.

It's so intense. To take Meghan's really quite aggressive words 'if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem' and 'if you are complacent, you are complicit'. It's so heavy and in your face. But I have learnt that level of intensity is just normal for USA politics. It's a culture shock for me, but I've learnt on here that's how it is in the USA. Honestly, I just find it all really scary. No idea why anyone who didn't need to be involved in it would choose to do so.

In my country a talk on going to vote (that wasn't designed to be partisan) would be about making sure you didn't miss the bake sale and the sausage sizzle. (Or get fined because it's compulsory anyway).

Because the current situation in the U.S. means you can be killed for just being black. Because the current situation in the U.S. means about 180,000 people have died because of the incompetence of our president. I don't see anything "aggressive" about what she said. I've said the same thing on my own FB page. You actually sound racist by saying what Meghan's saying is "aggressive."

 

[starrynight]

Because the current situation in the U.S. means you can be killed for just being black. Because the current situation in the U.S. means about 180,000 people have died because of the incompetence of our president. I don't see anything "aggressive" about what she said. I've said the same thing on my own FB page. You actually sound racist by saying what Meghan's saying is "aggressive."

Thanks - Perfect post to illustrate just what I was saying. This is how scary intense USA politics is. It's unforgiving and there's no middle ground.

You're speaking at me from within the USA bubble though. Your country's politics are your own and that's your business. Good luck with your election. But what an intense territory for a Duchess of the United Kingdom to enter.

 

[Coco]

We used to have bake sales at our voting place. It was a senior living center. But due to IT, can't have strangers trouping through.

Sigh...sausage sizzle sounds pretty good, though!

 

[canbelto]

Thanks - Perfect post to illustrate just what I was saying. This is how scary intense USA politics is. It's unforgiving and there's no middle ground.

You're speaking at me from within the USA bubble though. Your country's politics are your own and that's your business. Good luck with your election. But what an intense territory for a Duchess of the United Kingdom to enter.

By telling people to vote? Once more for those in the back: the act of voting is not political. WHo you vote for is political. But the act of voting is not.

 

[Lemonade20]

This isn’t the US politics thread, it’s the H&M thread

 

[canbelto]

This isn’t the US politics thread, it’s the H&M thread

Yes but people are giving Meghan a hard time for "getting political" when she just told people to vote. If she told people to vote for Biden/Harris that's political. Saying "go vote" is not political.

 

[Jenny]

Saying "go vote" is not political.

Not in principle, but it is now. Are you not following the news? Have you followed the elections of the past few years? The Republican Party has been using a variety of tactics to stop people from voting for years now, because it's generally thought that when voter turnout is lower, Republicans are more likely to win. And if that isn't bad enough, the target voters are generally lower income, people of colour, immigrants and other marginalized demographics, because they are generally more likely to vote Democrat.

When celebrities and others encourage others to vote it isn't simply because it's a citizen's right in any democracy, it's because in the United States, voter suppression is most definitely a political issue, because it's a political strategy by a major party.

And this year more than ever, the President of the United States is actively participating in the campaign to suppress voters, notably with the current mess with the US postal service, which is directly related to his campaign (supported by some but not all Republicans) to make it harder to vote by mail. And in a pandemic!

This isn't about your grandfather telling you that voting is important. This is about people speaking out now and encouraging people to vote because that very right is being threatened for political reasons.

The right to vote wasn't supposed to be a partisan concept, but Donald Trump and the Republican Party have made it one, and their opponents have therefore taken up the cause to fight what they are doing by encouraging people to vote.

I'm amazed you don't see this.

 

[canbelto]

Not in principle, but it is now. Are you not following the news? Have you followed the elections of the past few years? The Republican Party has been using a variety of tactics to stop people from voting for years now, because it's generally thought that when voter turnout is lower, Republicans are more likely to win. And if that isn't bad enough, the target voters are generally lower income, people of colour, immigrants and other marginalized demographics, because they are generally more likely to vote Democrat.

When celebrities and others encourage others to vote it isn't simply because it's a citizen's right in any democracy, it's because in the United States, voter suppression is most definitely a political issue, because it's a political strategy by a major party.

And this year more than ever, the President of the United States is actively participating in the campaign to suppress voters, notably with the current mess with the US postal service, which is directly related to his campaign (supported by some but not all Republicans) to make it harder to vote by mail. And in a *********!

This isn't about your grandfather telling you that voting is important. This is about people speaking out now and encouraging people to vote because that very right is being threatened for political reasons.

The right to vote wasn't supposed to be a partisan concept, but Donald Trump and the Republican Party have made it one, and their opponents have therefore taken up the cause to fight what they are doing by encouraging people to vote.

I'm amazed you don't see this.

I see all that. However I don't see how Meghan simply telling people to vote is "inappropriate" because of her royal titles. First of all she's a citizen of the U.S. so she has a right to speak out. Second of all she left the monarchy and so she's no longer bound by their rules and protocols. Third of all the BRF often wades into way more hot-button political issues (like Charles and the environment or Camila and the rights of sex workers). I'm just saying you can dislike Meghan for this or that but telling people to vote is not some pearl-clutching break of royal rules.

 

[MacMadame]

Not in principle, but it is now.

I disagree. The GOP and conservatives are also doing GOTV activities. This is not something only Dems do.

Telling people to vote is simply not taking a side in a political issue.

 

[Jenny]

I see all that. However I don't see how Meghan simply telling people to vote is "inappropriate" because of her royal titles. First of all she's a citizen of the U.S. so she has a right to speak out. Second of all she left the monarchy and so she's no longer bound by their rules and protocols. Third of all the BRF often wades into way more hot-button political issues (like Charles and the environment or Camila and the rights of sex workers). I'm just saying you can dislike Meghan for this or that but telling people to vote is not some pearl-clutching break of royal rules.

Yes she's a US citizen, and if she thinks she can do some good due to her influence as a celebrity then good for her. But this discussion started with the fact that she is continuing to use her British title while doing so.

I disagree. The GOP and conservatives are also doing GOTV activities. This is not something only Dems do.

Telling people to vote is simply not taking a side in a political issue.

True, and there have always been celebrities out there telling people to vote, including supporting voter registration efforts.

However, while both parties maybe encouraging people to vote, only one of them seems to be actively trying to stop people from voting.

 

[ballettmaus]

The fact that she's still using her title is what is giving me the impression that she wants to have the cake and eat it, too. If she doesn't want to live as a duchess/be a duchess why use it? Does she believe that it will help her causes? Does it? Would she really have so much less recognition if she stopped using it or differently put, doesn't everyone know who she is and who she is married to by now?

 

[starrynight]

I think my view is that none of this seems to be the actions of a person who wants to retreat to a quiet, protected life.

I think Meghan wants to get the gloves off and get in the middle of it all. Which is fine, but I don't know why then such a fuss was made about Britain and the Commonwealth allegedly not providing a gentle space for her - if she is happy to, in any way, get involved in what will be a very nasty election that the whole world is watching.

All this while reclining on chairs in that really lush garden in her mansion paid for by her royal connections (and all the money from the Duchy of Cornwall only come because her husband is the son of the future king) ... whilst saying she's 'glad to be home'. Talk about the 1%.

 

[canbelto]

I think my view is that none of this seems to be the actions of a person who wants to retreat to a quiet, protected life.

I think Meghan wants to get the gloves off and get in the middle of it all. Which is fine, but I don't know why then such a fuss was made about Britain and the Commonwealth allegedly not providing a gentle space for her - if she is happy to, in any way, get involved in what will be a very nasty election that the whole world is watching.

All this while reclining on chairs in that really lush garden in her mansion paid for by her royal connections ... whilst saying she's 'glad to be home'. Talk about the 1%.

standing up for a basic right is not “nasty.”

 

[starrynight]

standing up for a basic right is not “nasty.”

I said the election will be nasty.

Can I please ask people to step outside the USA bubble/world view and try to look at it from the outside.

USA politics is known around the world as being super partisan and adversarial - it's like the pinnacle of intensity. It's not the same everywhere else in the world. Which is why people in other commonwealth countries who don't have as adversarial politics think that the USA system is extremely intimidating.

It's important to remember that the rest of the anglophone world is not identical to the USA. Other countries might speak English, but they do have their own cultures and world views. I think this is where so much of the culture shock is coming from.

 

[skategal]

I’m Canadian.

I think Meghan has every right to tell her country folk to vote. I don’t think it is particularly political.

And I’m sure if she did it as Meghan Markle rather than the Duchess of Sussex there would be just as much brouhaha about it if not more because then she would be seen as “not appreciating her title and her husband” or something else just as asinine.

 

[taf2002]

I agree @skategal. I don't see how using her title is wanting to have her cake & eat it too. I wasn't born with a title but people call me Mrs. H. That's a title. If you doubt me just fill out a form.

So the Queen gave her & Harry the Duchy of Sussex. Every time she breathes someone starts screaming that she should be stripped of her title. I'm trying to figure how some of the members here got so hateful (& maybe jealous) to scrutinize every last thing she does & then write posts about how horrible she is.

 

[starrynight]

I think Americans will always struggle to understand the social contract that goes along with the royal family being allowed to continue to exist and lavished with money, titles and status.

Which is odd to me, because I would have supposed the idea of being given something for nothing was opposed to American values. But that’s a question for Americans to comment on.

The monarchy couldn’t function in a modern democracy and society if every royal had an open mic to use their platform and titles to say and do whatever they wanted and take the funds overseas, not do duties etc.

I know that plenty of people just view her as another celebrity whose views align with their own and hence they like her. But it’s not a good precedent to set in respect of the structure of the monarchy. These are not democratically elected people, so their power has to be kept reigned in. Royals of Harry’s level have the potential to create diplomatic issues and dramas. Far more influence than just a random movie star.

I think people simply expect a level of humility and gratefulness from the royals for the lifestyle that’s been lavished on them. And I think that’s where Harry and Meghan are getting unstuck.

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

 

[manhn]

Are people telling me that no Royal has ever encouraged British people to vote? If not, why the hell not? Does the Queen want people not to vote?

 

[VGThuy]

I think Americans will always struggle to understand the social contract that goes along with the royal family being allowed to continue to exist and lavished with money, titles and status.

Which is odd to me, because I would have supposed the idea of being given something for nothing was opposed to American values. But that’s a question for Americans to comment on.

I don't understand how those two statements contradict one another. I guess this American has trouble understanding how a message to participate in the electoral system that is dependent on population participation to survive will go against any sort of social contract because the idea of participating in the franchise is part of one's basic right to Americans (despite what one party may be doing), even if we understand that royal themselves are not supposed to participate in it. To Americans, saying go vote is so basic and neutral and doesn't even mean anything anymore. Nobody would take it to mean go vote for one candidate/party but I think because of the way Meghan looks and whatever people project onto her (what else is new?), people assume she means vote for one party. I guess if she wasn't black people wouldn't think twice about her saying such a thing but because she is people are assuming she means vote Democrat.

 

[starrynight]

I don't understand how those two statements contradict one another.

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?

 

[ballettmaus]

I agree @skategal. I don't see how using her title is wanting to have her cake & eat it too.

The reason why I think that is that she got married to Harry, got the title then they decided that they wanted more ordinary life while she retained the title of Duchess of Sussex. I just find that contradictory. Either you're the Duchess of Sussex or you're a private/ordinary citizen. I don't think you can be both. (Same goes for Harry, by the way. I don't think he can ask to be considered a private/ordinary citizen while he retains his titles).

I wasn't born with a title but people call me Mrs. H. That's a title. If you doubt me just fill out a form.

And if someone got married to a well-known person with a prominent name and took their name and then said that they wanted a more private life but retained their spouse's prominent name instead of going back to their maiden name, I'd feel the same way. I'd always wonder if they want to have a more private life but aren't quite willing to give up the privileges that come with the name.

That said, there are plenty of people out there who take advantage of the platform their name gives them. And I think that's okay, as long as they accept that that will generate a certain amount of attention and they don't demand complete privacy like any other ordinary citizen.

 

[MacMadame]

I don't think H+M said they wanted a private life. Their original plan was to still do royal engagements and support the royal family only not at the level of senior royals. They wanted a similar life to what the non-senior royals have. They didn't want to retreat from public life like Howard Hughes or Greta Garbo!

 

[starrynight]

Their original plan was to still do royal engagements and support the royal family only not at the level of senior royals. They wanted a similar life to what the non-senior royals have.

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

 

[VGThuy]

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?

I guess it's about us thinking she entered into a system most of us can't enter and hadn't been available to us common and foreign, and colored folk. 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. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you were a Republican, and if so, you seem upset she's not respecting the monarchy the way you think she should. If anything, I would think a non-monarchist would be happy she's sort of flaunting it and showing off the ridiculousness of the whole thing in the modern age. It may be a bit ridiculous that she's commenting on social inequality, but hey, we're all unequal to the monarchy no matter how much wealth any of us had before. And her being aware of what it's like being black in America, no matter how much money she has is something that can't be ignored, as many blacks with money will tell you. Racism exists no matter how much you have in your bank account and how "acceptable" you make yourself. I don't think that's unique to the U.S. either.

Also, someone brought up the fact that she didn't "adopt" her blackness till later, but who says she didn't? People see her and think she's a black woman. You know those royals did with all the racism she faced with that family. I know mixed-raced and biracial children have it tough as they aren't fully accepted and no matter what they do, they can't seem to prove it enough. It's also a huge thing in the Asian-American community where there seems to be this regressive purity test half-Asians or mixed-Asians have to face and it's one that's kind of gross.

 

[starrynight]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said you were a Republican, and if so, you seem upset she's not respecting the monarchy the way you think she should. If anything, I would think a non-monarchist would be happy she's sort of flaunting it and showing off the ridiculousness of the whole thing in the modern age. It may be a bit ridiculous that she's commenting on social inequality, but hey, we're all unequal to the monarchy no matter how much wealth any of us had before.

FYI before people here attack me it’s ‘republican’ used in the sense of having a president as the head of state. Not the USA party politics.

 

[VGThuy]

FYI before people here attack me it’s ‘republican’ used in the sense of having a president as the head of state. Not the USA party politics.

I was wondering if I should have clarified that too. Maybe I should just use "non-monarchist" for now on.

 

[starrynight]

Lol no worries.

Anyway now that I got that settled, I have fluid opinions about it. I think it’s a delicate balance. I don’t believe in giving royals free reign and unquestioned admiration and a giant cheque book just because of accident of birth. But at the same time I can appreciate their value when they work for it and earn it.

Some of the stuff Harry and Meghan do certainly makes me question the system and makes me an anti-monarchist. I think for me they’ve demonstrated how much the platform and privilege of royals could actually be manipulated if one of them chose to do so.

But at the same time, for example, Queen Elizabeth has had an extremely successful reign and has earned respect through her actions.

So I guess it’s complicated. The history of royals is littered with wastes of space, but there have been some undoubtedly worthy individuals amongst it all. Like anything, nothing is black and white.

And all of this is offset by the fact I dislike all politicians, so I don’t really like the idea of more of them either.

 

[Jenny]

To Americans, saying go vote is so basic and neutral and doesn't even mean anything anymore.

A few years ago I would have agreed with this statement, but not now.

Nobody would take it to mean go vote for one candidate/party but I think because of the way Meghan looks and whatever people project onto her (what else is new?), people assume she means vote for one party.

According to my social feeds and what I see on the news, the message isn't "go vote for my preferred party" but more like "go vote because one of the parties is trying to take away your right to vote."

This is coming from the kind of people who speak out about lots of issues - gender inequality, BLM, LGBTQ rights, and more. That's the commonality - they speak out for those they feel need their voices heard, not their own demographics.

 

[skategal]

In a country where you have to go back to the 1960s to find an election where more than 57% of the eligible voters actually turned out to vote, I fail to see how a “Go Vote” message is particularly political.

Some presidents were actually elected with less than 50% of eligible voters voting.

Lack of voter engagement in the US is a long standing issue which predates Trump and cronies.

I’m sure there are political messages on social media, there always are in elections.

But Meghan’s message seems pretty neutral and designed to stay neutral.

 

[antmanb]

The royal family aren't allowed to vote or run for political office, and that's about the only thing actually mentioned in any laws. If there has been a custom that the royal family don't say political things out in public, then it is simply a custom and would be more important for the reigning monarch to adhere to and arguably is only really relevant to things that would politically concern the UK.

Meghan Markle and Harry have stopped representing the royal family, and telling people to vote in an election in the US doesn't strike me as particularly political but everyone who wants to stick the knife into Meghan Markle will try anything. As a Brit I don't think she's done anything wrong. If telling someone in the US to vote is seen as pollical, then what about the charities the royal family support that are trying to combat global warming? Is that political because the moron in charge of the US doesn't believe it is a thing?