The Duchess of Sussex covers this week’s issue of Us Weekly, and inevitably, it’s about how Meghan is just like the late Princess Diana. I say “inevitably” because it feels like it doesn’t even matter who William and Harry married: their wives were always going to be compared to their late mother. Of course, their wives can sometimes help along that narrative to varying degrees. Personally, I find a lot of the “Diana throwbacks” to be kind of creepy in general. Obviously, both princes adored their mother, but I think both men selected wives based on very different criteria than “she needs to be so much like mum.” William went out of his way to select a woman from a stable and close nuclear family, fulfilling his lifelong dream of being part of a “normal” family. Harry went for a woman who does seem more like Diana, in that Meghan is emotive, personable, industrious, etc. And yet on paper, Meghan is nothing like Diana – Diana was a white, blonde aristocrat with barely any education. Still, let’s hear about how Meghan is “the new Diana.”
Princess Diana’s legacy lives on. Since tying the knot with Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan (nee Markle) has solidified her place as the new People’s Princess, a title fondly bestowed upon Diana due to her genuine warmth and concern toward all those she met.
“One of the things that Harry fell for in Meghan early on in their relationship is just how empathetic and compassionate she is,” a palace insider exclusively reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly. The source adds that Meghan, 36, shares those qualities with the 33-year-old prince’s late mother. Taking cues from Diana, “Meghan wants to make a difference in the world,” the insider notes. “It’s one of the reasons she was so keen to get started with her charity work as soon as she married Harry. This is her life now … She’s found her true purpose.”
According to the insider, the royal family couldn’t be happier about the former Suits actress’ new role.
“Senior aides at Buckingham Palace are already talking about just how strong Meghan’s global influence will be over the years ahead and how that will make her an incredibly important and powerful asset to the British Royal Family,” the insider explains, pointing out that even Queen Elizabeth II, is excited about Meghan’s enthusiasm for living a life of service.
As I’ve said many, many times: there are multiple reasons why Meghan was “fast-tracked” into the royal family. One of those reasons is what Us Weekly said: they know Meghan will be a global asset. They know that introducing an African-American woman into this stuffy, privileged institution is a radical and modern act. It’s interesting then to compare Meghan to Diana, because Diana wasn’t supposed to be radical whatsoever. Diana was chosen because of how un-radical she was at the time: a shy 19-year-old aristocrat. They thought they could manipulate her and control her. They were wrong. Are they wrong about Meghan too? Could it be that they believed they were getting someone who would radicalize their institution, and what they’re getting is yet another pleasant, compliant woman who adores buttons?
Cover courtesy of Us Weekly, additional photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid & PCN.
Hahaha! I am getting concerned about the level of buttons we are seeing! Thank you for giving me something to care about vs. the death of democracy
+1
One look at the screeching hags at the Daily Mail et. al. and you know MM doesn’t have to ‘radicalize’ anything—she’s radical just by being —an African-American at the apex of the food chain.
Exactly! Her mere presence in that “sanctified” white space is radical enough. I wish people would let up on her fashions and focus on her more. Every time she carries out an engagement it’s fascinating to see how the people in that tier of society react and how she handles the space.
Also, I’ve noticed people harping about Meghan having a defense team. Get used to it. When POC enter in exclusive white spaces, they’ll always have a defense team.
~Twice as hard, to get half as much~
I agree, just like Serena Williams Rena’s Army.
Well it’s a bit early in the game to describe Meghan as ‘compliant.’ However, her new mode of dress screams compliance.
Give Meghan time, it took Diana a few years before she became radical.
Calling her new Diana or people’s princess is against everything the queen stands for.
Diana got that nickname after her marriage was over. Meghan is playing by the rules, besides she’s been married for like five minutes. She has yet to do something.
” it took Diana a few years before she became radical”
and she only truly became radical once she knew her marriage was in the toilet and unsaveable . Meghan is currently in a completely different boat.
This is gross on so many levels. First of all, it’ US Weekly calling her the People’s Princess. It a NOT British publication. Secondly, she hasn’t done anything yet except wear a bunch of bespoke outfits all in a row. Meghan could be the most hated royal ever and the US papers will gush over how loved she is! Third, lay off that “making the world a better place” talk and “global efforts.” I thought the job of the royals was England.
And the whole Princess idea is gross anyway, for any AmericAn publication. So patriarchal.
Meghan is also the age Diana was when she died. Meghan is a fully formed adult with an established reputation for speaking her mind. Obviously as a newlywed she isn’t going rogue against the RF. Still, we may see her gain confidence taking on projects individually over time, and charming the masses, like Diana.
I think Meghan is just doing what we all do when we start a new job. We look at the dress code, we wear what is considered appropriate for the first few months, and then maybe – maybe – we start pushing the envelope in subtle ways here and there without outright breaking the dress code.
Yeah. In the other post about Angelina Jolie at whatever royal event that is, she’s also following the dress code with the, er, less attractive hat and everything.
Exactly, not only she has to adjust the new culture, she also has to adjust culture of the UK in general. She seems she is having culture clush lately.
There will always be one and only ONE Princess Di. Now, that said, anyone remembers the speech Meghan did at I believe it was One Young World women’s conference probably in 2014 or so, where she said that she refused to do any more “Rachel enters wearing in a towel” scenes? At that time she said “you do it for a time but a time comes when you feel empowered to say no” she said time came when she felt like ok, we done this quite a few times, its not happening no more, and she voiced her concerns to the bosses who wrote no more “enters wearing in a towel” scenes for her. It took time though, but she fought for and stood up for herself and her character. I think I’m gonna give Meghan time, its too early to say she is gonna be this and that or she gonna do this or that. Kate has had 7 years and she still not changed that much. Diana was married for 15 years and change only came after about 10 yers. Meghan has been married for a hot second, and just like the others before her, Meghan too deserves to be given time to grow into her role and do whatever she needs to do.
Diana’s personality was only 19 when she married. Her personality wasn’t really fixed yet. Her marriage was also the pits and she clearly found Camilla beyond irritating — that will definitely spark a revolt.
Both Kate and Meghan were older when they married, and if they’re happy in their marriages, I don’t really see why they’d feel the need to revolt or radicalize.
Bone to pick:
While I am an unapologetic Meghan AND former Diana Stan/lover, I think it’s insulting and reductive to call her the next Diana. Why can’t she just be who she is, a combination of many traits, good and bad, and the sum is neither better than or worse than her beloved now sainted dead mother in law? How would it be if Diana were alive—super Awkward doing these comparisons, amirite? Good god let the woman be who she is.
Psst, it’s a way to knock her down in the future.
A living, breathing woman with all of her charms and flaws is always going to fall short of an idealized memory of a dead woman.
I Totally agree with you!
Leave the woman alone, for goodness sake!
“…People’s Princess, a title fondly bestowed upon Diana only after she died.” Fixed it for ’em.
Oh yes. While she was alive she was queen of hearts, but whatever the press called her it was after her marriage collapsed very publicly.
It’s insane to compare Meg to Diana, her husband’s mum, very Freudian. I don’t understand why is there a need to dig up Diana every single time we see Meg or Kate. And i love Diana, she was the only actual person in that family.
2 duchesses with a love of buttons and boring fashion. (I still love both Meg and Kate – just wish they were a little more dynamic – not sure dynamic is the right word, but neither are certainly radicals, even by royal standards)
There will never be another Diana. Everyone should be appreciated for who they are individually. I agree, the comparisons are kind of weird.
On a different note, I would love to know if she is paying for her own clothing because wow she wears expensive pieces. Yes, I know Catherine wears expensive clothing too.
Vox has an excellent article about her regarding fashion.
One of the most memorable lines is about how Diana could be radical and get away with it because she was a white, blonde artistocrat and noone was going to accuse her of not being classy. Meghan, on the other hand, is first trying to prove that she fits in and belongs. Then, she can perhaps be a bit more radical later on.
What do people expect, though? I think she looks lovely and obviously wants to do her best. She can’t be called “compliant,” per se, at this point because we haven’t even seen the full breadth of her charitable endeavors.
But all royals do charitable work. So, however unfortunate and anti-feminist it is, are her clothes and appearance the only other barometer of how much of a change agent she is (or is not)?
^5
It will also depend on how much charity work she does and how she puts her stamp on it. We haven’t heard her since before the wedding and I think that’s what is missing for me. Meghan speaking at that joint appearance with the Cambridges was a home run and I’d like to see more of that.
We focus on clothes now because that’s the most we see of personality.
What I note is that she has been married for a month only. Just a month. For someone new, she is doing a good job by not flubbing it by wearing really awful things or attention seeking ensembles. She has more pressure because of race but I believe she will learn and get it right. Remember she came this far from nothing so she knows and is a fast learner.
My thinking/hope and that when she and Harry do a solo event they will look incredible.
Was very surprised today to see in the Telegraph (very pro royals generally) an article noting an increase in royal spending compared to last year, its being attributed to the ramping up of events attended by Will, Harry and Kate but also there was a marked increase of 1m since Meghan made her appearance.
She’ll never be even if she does everything they claim they want her to do.
Dress very inexpensively or glamorously. Do charity work every day. Have twins or triplets. None of it will matter when a white woman can do very little and be seen as superior.
^This
Yup. Think about the month this woman has had. Imagine having to do your job in front of the world while your estranged father is repeatedly running to the gutter press.
She’s done phenomenally well so far.
Say it louder for the people in the back.
I know. It is so ridiculous. I fail to see why liking her and trying to be fair to her offends some but it does. They are virulent and a little unhinged when it comes to her. It is strange to me since she is very benign at this point.
She is challenging those who have to date supported white mediocrity. They don’t like it. Is she perfect? No. But she is doing a hell of a lot more than some and matching what other royal wives have done who don’t get the same press attention.
This is testament that after 20 years Diana still sells, which is why the media continue to evoke her name at every opportunity.
Diana was a conformist until her marriage began to fall apart. Anyone marrying into the royal family always tries to fit in because you don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.
They’re rewriting history here. And its hilarious in how badly it’s done, but also scary in how many people will eat it up as truth.
Also, “keen?” Yea… simmer down KP. We see you. This is bad. It’s building her up very quickly so they can tear her down when the heir and his need to rise.
I hope she (and Harry) are smart enough to see it, and plan accordingly for the future. She needs her own outside charity, like Sentebale, that she owns fully herself outside of royal duties. Like Queen Silvia of Sweden and the World Childhood Foundation. They need to plan today, so if needed, they can walk away years from now with two successful non-profits they can hand to their kids as careers.
I agree that they should develop strong outside endeavors if only for their sanity. However I wonder why they would need to hand their kids careers? Nepotism is strong in the celebrity culture, but I don’t think either prince has been happy or well served by being handed a role to fill in the family firm. I am glad I got to develop my own career based on my passions.
I think their children, if they have any, will be attacked even more than Beatrice and Eugenie. They’ll never be working royals, may have lower titles, but will be attacked as scroungers and vilified in social media for decades.
Facing all of that *plus* trying to figure out what to do for a living? When every other person would be screaming on social media, “They only got that job because of their parents” even if they ended up as heart surgeons.
Better to set them up with a non-profit they can run, even if it ends up being what they do on the side with another career. It is working out well for Madeline of Sweden, giving her important work while also helping her exit the royal game.
Thanks for clarfying, Nota. I understand your viewpoint now.
Meghan is torn down and nitpicked constantly in media. Too many articles are about how she doesn’t measure up. So I welcome any positive press she receives.
I hate the Diana comparisons. I hate when people compare Kate to Diana* and I hate this. Just let them be themselves.
I think Meghan is being fast tracked for a variety of reasons, one of which is that she is smart enough to know that she isn’t going to have same leniency Kate got in the press. She is going to have to announce her charities soon (I’m thinking September) and she is going to have to up her appearances after the “summer break.” I think she knows all that.
*I know Kate sometimes encourages the comparison with her wardrobe choices, but not every clothing choice she makes is a homage to Diana (like one time she wore pearls and she was “channeling Diana.” Give us all a break.)
I believe is either you are born with it or not. To be like Diana is to have that magical aura and strong charisma that people will be attaracted to you like flys . It’s not only , like or love but to stuck in their memories. Regardless if you are too good or had some mistakes. People will still love you. I have notice this kind of magnetic and Charming effect even in some dictators that change nations and history. Not necessarily a good people. Like these persons are destined to change people life whether love or hate. I don’t think Meghan is anywhere near that not even if she ticked all the right steps or did so much, she does not have it. This is not a diss actually this only to say to people don’t put her in big shoes because she is not born With it not even Harry, Kate or William. They just don’t have it.
@Inas, I love Meghan, but I agree with you re: Diana. Just looking at old pictures of her, it’s striking how emotive she was. She oozed personality even in still images. She may have been troubled, but she seemed like such a beautiful and transparent soul. And I say this just by looking at archival photos, not through press reports or tell-alls about her. I don’t know anyone else that can make you fall a little bit in love with them through photos alone, and I’m a hetero woman. Diana just had this amazing charisma. Unfortunately, Prince Charles reportedly resented this instead of cherishing this gem of a woman.
Harry has it. Watch him with people, especially when he visits the islands. Meghan has something too, but not sure what it is. In videos of her interviews from life prior to Harry, she is bubbly and determined and smart.
I agree. Harry has a lot of his mother’s charisma and Meghan knows how to interact with people she doesn’t know without seeming awkward. A lot of it has to do with having a genuine interest in others and not being a selfish human being.
NOBODY is born with charisma, not even Diana was. People work at doing and being good. One can be born or given the gift of kindness and giving back and all in all want to do good for others. But if they don’t work at those gifts, they lose them. Diana, when she first married into the RF, was NOT this charismatic woman you make her out to be, she was very shy and much more of a conformist. If Charles had loved her and devoted himself to her, there wouldn’t be none of this people’s princess that people are talking about. Most of Diana’s work with the underprivileged was born out of loneliness and boredom and her need to do something to keep herself busy. Once she got out there, she discovered that she had a gift and was then willing to work at and refine it. All this did not happen within just a few weeks of her marriage, they happened years later. So to judge Meghan’s character or personality based on what you’ve seen of her in the last 6 months is just ridiculous. Ask those that she worked with in the charities she worked with and they’ll paint a very different picture of Meghan. But again, even Meghan had to work hard on her skills. Unlike Diana, Meghan has something that she can point to that she did to bring about change, which she did as an 11 year old. And she didn’t leave it there, she continued to work at and refining her skill while working with WVC, UNW, etc etc. So this just tells me that Meghan, given time, the same opportunities given to white people and the room to work and develop her gift she will do great things. As they say, even Rome was not built in one day.
I disagree Masamf. You either have charisma or you don’t. I was about 12 years old when Diana married Charles – with little interest in the Royal Family – but I was fascinated by her.
She drew HUGE crowds wherever she went right from the start and we watched her transform from a shy woman barely out of her teens to an accomplished and glamorous figure on the world stage. She had none of Meghan’s polish and worldliness.
Diana is irreplaceable and it’s a huge burden for Meghan to be compared to her. They are completely different women in all respects except for marrying into the same family.
But I do agree with you that Meghan needs to be given time to establish herself.
A large part of why Diana drew crowns was simply because she was Charles’s long-awaited fiancee. Much as the attention Kate gets would have been given to anyone who married William. Has little to do with them as people.
Diana was incredibly temperamental, which William inherited. She had the ability to draw people in and then frequently scratched their eyes out just because she wanted to. She was fascinating, frustrating, and the world definitely doesn’t need another one of her.
The crowds would have drifted away in time if that was the case. They didn’t.
And I don’t see Diana as a saint at all btw. She was very complicated but was beloved.
You certainly can be born with “charisma”; and you can also LOSE it. It is a balance of factors that can be upset or lost as life progresses; and very often it actually comes from WOUNDS.
Diana wasn’t born “charismatic”. There are simply too many accounts about her as a teenager and a young woman – none of them testimonies to particularly great “charisma” – to claim otherwise. To paraphrase (hence no quote marks) Tina Brown’s excellent bio: it was PAIN what made her shine.
Her appearance (whether one considers it “beauty” or not, that’s irrelevant) had a LOT to do with it, too. Would she have been just as “charismatic” with, say, short brown hair and brown eyes? Think about it.
BTW, crowds would have flocked to ANY Charles’ bride. It had very little to do with her personal “charisma”. It had everything to do with her position and with the buildup by the media.
Finally, I don’t find MM’s vibe particularly “emotive”, as some have called it.
I can see the motions of “emotion”, certainly. ; ) That’s it.
And it’s not even criticism, because being emotive isn’t, per se, something “good”.
I think MM needs to just be herself but not act the part. That ‘realness’ will shine through. She’s still very aware of the attention and cameras and that sometimes comes across as her posing IMHO.
As for Diana’s charisma, or lack of depending on your view, I disagree it was about pain as per Tina Brown’s argument but more vulnerability. She was very young and grew up – indeed blossomed – in the gaze of the world’s media. Who is truly charismatic until they have reached adulthood? And would you appear charismatic unless the spotlight was focused on you?
There are plenty of examples of A-listers who shuffle around unrecognised and then turn on the star power when the flashbulbs go off.
If she continues with her gratuitously expensive outfits, public opinion will soon change.
Note to the woefully inexperienced Kensington Palace: make sure Meghan starts wearing more affordable outfits from Reiss, LK Bennett, Mint Velvet, Club Monaco, Karen Millen- maybe even a few Ted Baker items.
Point being, for someone so obviously intelligent and who started out so promising when she was engaged (and being a former d-list actress) this is not a good look for her.
I really don’t know why I continue reading these Royal posts- I can’t wait until we finally get rid of them (hopefully once the Queen is gone).
I hope her choices focus on ethically made clothing and smaller labels. She has such a great platform to highlight responsible fashion and smaller businesses.
I hope she moves away from the High Street version of cheap, fast fashion. Marks and Spencers is affordable but who made those items and did they have decent work conditions? I’ve never been a fan of the whole “just like us” thing of wearing something from a cheaper store.
She’s held to an impossible standard by the UK because she’s biracial and outside of the UK because she’s a beautiful American (who was semi-famous because of an acting career).
While she’s doing her best and clearly eager to learn, she’s nothing special. Her past career and current choice indicate somebody who loves to live by the rules and conform to reach the top. Anybody who joins the Royal Family should never be considered a non-conformist. Anybody reaching somewhat of a status and steady income from a ruthless business like Hollywood, should never be considered a rebel. Very few rebels survive or even make it in that industry. She wasn’t making waves pre-RF, why should she start now? Especially now that’s she’s close to 40 and her personality has been shaped a long time ago?
People are so hungry for a Royal like Diana but there will never be another one. Not in this generation at least. And Diana was a rebel because she could; she was a star in her own right. Outshone her ex-husband. Meghan is so not in that position and will never be. Despite being ‘famous’, she became a star due to Harry. And now it’s not that hard to stand out in the Royal Family when you look like Meghan between a bunch of inbreeders!
Still she will never accepted by the British and if she steps out of line like Diana did, she would be eviscerated by the press and the Royal Family. She’s a smart woman who didn’t marry Harry to be a rebel, nothing in her character or career choices indicate this type of personality.
Anyway, if she continues like she does now, people will quickly realise she’s just another boring RF-member. Not the new Diana or some hot rebel that will change the institution.
She’s nothing special? I disagree
If she was, she would have put her mark on Hollywood as an actress. (where beautiful women like her are aplenty). And at current, nothing she’s done is out of the ordinary. Conformists are nothing special. She stands out because she’s beautiful which is not hard in the Royal Family.
She was average in Hollywood and the RF is average by its nature and she’s not making any waves there either so nope, nothing special. People just trying to make her into the saviour of the RF when that’s clearly not her goal. RF is a archaic racist sinking ship and she happily hopped onto it because of love of a questionable white man. Does that sound like the making of a rebel?
I agree with a fair bit of what you say Artemis but not that MM is held to a very high standard in the UK because she’s biracial.
The vast majority of press coverage about her here is very positive. It’s only the DM that takes swipes (which they are notorious for doing about other members of the RF, celebrities, politicians etc).
Lol I don’t agree with royalty as a principle and prefer a meritocracy but they are a distraction and historical so why not? I must admit though if someone told me anything that one of them was a block away and I could see them in person I am not sure I would bother. Schelp a whole block to see a human being for what reason? lol
Even if my children were all asleep and my animal kingdom was at rest I would probably be disinterested. They are computer fun but other than that *shrug*.
Wait no I would want to see Camilla. I don’t know why but I would.
I do enjoy other posters’ enthusiasm and knowledge and nitpicking fashion is harmless fun.
Oh hell to the F*CK NO. This woman will never be the Peoples Princess because there as only one. She will never measure up to what Diana was to so many people. True, she had her faults just like I am sure Meghan will have some (buttons and all), but it is asinine to compare these two.
…or she’ll surpass Diana with millions of different people. She’s been royal for 39 days and you’ve already written off her whole life and everything she may accomplish.
There’s a whole lot of Saint Diana going on on this thread. She is gone and buried, and twenty years on, many of us see that the good she did was often outweighed by the chaos of her personal life and behavior.
Meghan knows how to work hard and is interested in using this platform for good. She doesn’t need to be anyone other than herself, but in this global world with this kind of reach? She does have the ability to have great impact.
notasugarhere – there’s a whole lot of Saint Meghan on this forum, too.
Too soon to tell.
Where is LAK?
It’s very obvious this write up is from KP. Diana still sells even 20 years after her death. Let Kate and Meghan be. They don’t have half the charisma of Diana but it’s okay cos not everyone will be like her. Diana was so charismatic and well loved that Charles became very jealous. I’ve watched videos of Diana and Meghan interact with people; Dianas empathy shines through but I feel Meghan is acting. As mrsbump mentioned in the previous thread, Kate is a little lucky cos she’s tall, but Meghan disappears when she’s in a crowd. And her boring but very expensive clothes don’t do her any good. IMO, Someone as petite as she is should be very stylish and wear vibrant colors.
I love Diana to this day, but I feel pretty secure in guessing that Meghan is more emotionally stable than Di was and has the maturity to withstand the press onslaught (being an actress helps). Comparing the two is pointless.
To me, the biggest reason she’s being fast-tracked is because the queen is still alive and that could change at any moment. Who knows what’s going to happen with monarchy popularity when King Charles and queen Camilla take over. Best to ring as much out of Meghan as possible while things are stable and happy in royal land.
Diana was one in a million – you won’t see that again. The princes have chosen wives that correspond with the royal ideal – discrete, well-mannered, not too headstrong or emotional. That’s why we got Kate, who IMO lacks charisma and personality, but is precisely what William wanted: completely loyal and with no ambitions apart from being an upper class mother and housewife. Meghan is more interesting, but she is also a social climber (nothing wrong with that) and will probably play it safe in return for the ritzy aristo lifestyle. What made Diana special was how she did not play by the rules – she was highly emotional, not discrete, had lovers and so on. That’s great for us, but not for the RF. They won’t risk marrying someone who might go rogue and sway public opinion against the blood royals.
*eye roll*
These tabloid headline mischaracterizations are awful. I am so looking forward to work Meghan does. She has valid solid world work experience, education, strength, courage and all that topped off with kindness and consideration for others.
I liked Diana but Meghan is her own person and far more interesting. Diana was treated so cruelly and witnessing it was brutal. She died far too young. PM Blair named Diana People’s Princess right after she died I think? Meghan deserves far better and I’m hopeful, thanks to Harry, she’ll do all the good things she wants to with her new life. Goodness knows, the world needs people like her.
Time will tell. I do think Harry and Meghan are more willing to tackle controversial issues, hopefully they won’t just shake hands and cut ribbons in haute couture.
Has anyone noticed how her eyebrows look thinner? She plucked them somewhere between her first pre-engagement public appearance with Harry and her wedding. She had more dramatic, thicker eyebrows. The style she has now is the style she used to have prior to making a name as an actress (the early career photos). Probably, she was advised it’s too cutting edge for a royal?
I just don’t get why people think Harry and Meghan (or any other royal) is going to do more than shake hands and cut ribbons in haute couture, though.
Yes, they are going to shine a light on some issues, but it’s all going to be very vague (like Heads Together – it’s good to shine a light on mental health, but they never address the socio-economic reasons behind this issue). Most controversial issues in society are related to class and inequality, and the BRF is dependent on the class system. Fighting for actual equality would mean making themselves irrelevant.
So yeah, I like Meghan, but let’s not pretend the young royals are going to lead the way into a better future. Social and political advocates, scientists and idealists change societies. The RF will always be representing their own interests first and foremost.
This is why I think Charles will the last monarch. The world is changing and sooner or later the public won’t want to pay for them. Brexit may sow the seeds for this.
@Janie, totally agree with every word.
Janie – thanks for that chink of sanity and commonsense.
And I agree with magnoliarose that Brexit will lead to a serious questioning of the role and cost of the RF.
Meghan is different than Diana. Meghan has too much the emotionally stable high acheiving good girl all her life to be a rebel like Diana. Meghan gathers political capital so she can make change within systems instead of rebelling. And she’s not wasting that captial over wearing pantyhoses in the presence of the Queen. She would much rather have her feminism openly acknowledged and supported on Royal family website for example.
Meghan might proclaim to be a feminist but Diana’s legacy as a humanitarian far eclipses words. Diana walked the walk even when she was rebelling and her words and actions were far more powerful than what Meghan has done with her status at current. In fact Meghan has yet to start her legacy! They’re not comparable at all. Meghan is made into something she hasn’t been able to start yet. Let’s see a year or 2 down the line.
+1000
Jury is still out on MM. I’m not 100% convinced.
Diana’s “legacy as a humanitarian” boiled down to a few big acts, blown out of proportion after her untimely death. She did that work because of the personal gratification – and lionisation – she got out of it. And because it let her publicly kick Charles in the teeth. She cut out most of her charity work after the divorce and was headed down a Wealthy Ex-Wife Who Loves the Spotlight trek.
We have to wait and see what Meghan does. She knows how to work, welcomes this opportunity, and has an even-bigger platform than Diana did in many ways.
Why do we keep pretending Meghan is this great ‘feminist’ who will ‘make change within the system’?
Come on. If her life goal was to work for women’s causes, she would have worked with the UN or other organizations who actually change systems and politics. If your goal is to change the world, you don’t marry into a conservative, anachronistic institution with your freedom of speech basically taken away from you and where your job is to preserve the status quo.
Again, I like Meghan, but why don’t we just admit that her motivations are probably self-centered. She met an attractive prince, got this amazing opportunity for mind-blowing fame and riches, and she took it. Just like a lot of women would have done. There are thousands of hard-working feminists who sacrifice a lot to change systems and help others, and they rarely wear couture and live in castles. It’s bizarre to give someone like MM credit for social change. She will shine a light on a few issues, perhaps, but the work will be put in by other people.
Again with the idea that feminists aren’t allowed to fall in love and get married? She had a dual major, did an internship, did charity work while also making a living. That’s what a lot of us do. Now she has an enormous platform, so we wait and see what she does.
Whether or not you care to believe it, sometimes a royal can do amazing things with their position. Yes, while getting support from many other people, but the royal being the driving force is what makes it happen. See The Prince’s Trust, Invictus Games (he admits he stole the idea, but Warrior Games was never going to get as big as this), World Childhood Foundation, etc.
Meghan is biracial, only half African american.
It’s important because she’s not only identifies as such, but I do also think it’s one of the reason why Harry married her.
Explain? I don’t understand. I don’t mean it snarky I am just at sea about your meaning.
Sorry for my broken english lol. What I try to say is that Meghan isn’t african american but biracial. I said it’s important because she identifies as biracial, “a strong confident mixed race woman”.
Plus, I think that the fact she’s mixed allowed Harry to marry her (sorry, I didn’t know how to say it on a proper english). She already suffers from racial abuse, but I think it would have been way worse if she looked like Lupita or Viola Davis.
When the Queen passes on and Charles takes over, Britons should start thinking of winding down the monarchy. By the time the effect of Brexit takes its toll on the British economy, they will be forced to rethink if they actually need a money guzzling monarchy like the royal family.
Please no one should get me started on the fake news that the royal family attracts tourists because France which no longer has a monarchy earns the most in tourism. It’s lazy journalism that has made reporters not to really investigate how much the royal family is guzzling vs how much so called tourism income they attract.
There are many people both known and unknown who are doing more meaningful earth scorching charity work than the money guzzling royals put together are doing, yet they have legit carreers. They should wind down the monarchy and retrieve taxpayer funds from them so all of them go and find legit carreers.
All the heirs to the throne of the different kingdoms in my country are presently working professionals and when their father dies they take over the throne. They are not living lavishly and organising ribbon cutting events in the name of charity.
The king of my town holds a PhD and was a director in African Development Bank before he resigned and took over as king.
Another is a Professor of Statistics who had to resign and take over as king of his town when his father passed on.
Yet another King in one of the towns is a Professor in neurosurgery. Though he was the heir, He wasn’t going around guzzling money in the name of charity work while his father was king. He built a solid career for himself.
They all had carreers before royalty.
Britain’s constitution can be amended so that all the royals get a legit career and earn a living. There is really no justification in paying for Charles, Camilla, will, Kate, Harry, Meghan, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and all the numerous royals lavish lifestyles. The Constitution should be amended so they all go get legit jobs. The taxpayers should not be made to cater for all of them.
From what you’ve written, these monarchies are much smaller scale and more along the lines of the aristocracy. The UK certainly doesn’t need a king for every town. These royals act as the royals for all of the UK plus a portion of the Commonwealth. The royals are downsizing, and eventually it would be six royals covering 100+ million people. With that downsizing there *should* be a decrease in costs, but I won’t hold my breath.