Telegraph: Duchess Meghan’s activism ‘followed in the footsteps’ of other royals

Every Tuesday, the Duchess of Sussex releases an Archetypes podcast episode and every week, the British papers find something to scream and cry about. As we’re nearing the end of this season, the British coverage has gotten more subdued, although maybe I’ve just gotten better at tuning them out. I saw a few different people – Sussex Squaders – talking about the Telegraph’s coverage of this week’s podcast, “The Audacity of the Activist.” The Telegraph isn’t trying to make a meal over every little nitpicky thing about Meghan, but they did layer in some very hilarious commentary about how Meghan was an activist when she was a working royal, just as other royal women are suddenly activists too!! HRUMPH!

The hour-long episode, the tenth in the series, sees the Duchess explain why she has chosen to campaign for gender equity. She did so throughout her short time in the Royal family, whose members have regularly worked to promote the rights of women.

Describing the lead-up to her 2018 wedding to Prince Harry, the Duchess said: “Just a few days before my wedding, a very, very influential and inspiring woman – who for her own privacy I won’t share who [it] was with you – but she said to me, I know that your life is changing but please don’t give up your activism. Don’t give up because it means so much to women and girls. And I kept doing the work for women and girls because it matters, yes, but also because she encouraged me to do so and the collective voice of all of us telling each other.”

The Duchess’s campaigning for women and girls during her two years in Britain included becoming patron of SmartWorks, a charity helping to boost the confidence of vulnerable women by dressing them for job interviews, and a cookbook for the Grenfell Tower community. In doing so, she followed in the footsteps of other female members of the Royal family, who are still working within the palace system.

The Queen has made domestic violence a cornerstone of her public campaigning, while the Princess of Wales focuses closely on the mental health of mothers and promotion of women in sport. The Countess of Wessex works with the UN for the protection of women from sexual violence in warzones, the Princess Royal has been a lifelong supporter of women in Stem and the military, and the late Queen Elizabeth II is regularly held up as one of history’s most influential women, reigning through decades dominated by men.

[From The Telegraph]

Dictionary definition of “activist”: “a person who campaigns to bring about political or social change.” In fact, when Meghan used her position within the royal family to be an activist, she was always ripped to shreds for being “too political, too woke, too American” and for trying to “change” things which are perfectly fine already, at least according to the old, stale, male editors of the British papers. I would agree that other royal women have sometimes ventured into something resembling activism, but there’s a difference between activism, advocacy and patronage. Most royal women are not actually activists, they are advocates and patrons. I just find it funny that Meghan is like “activism is cool, more women should be activists” and the Telegraph is crying about how no one recognizes Kate’s “activism” in saying “the early years are important” for five years.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

131 Responses to “Telegraph: Duchess Meghan’s activism ‘followed in the footsteps’ of other royals”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ThatsNotOkay says:

    “She followed in the footsteps of other female members of the Royal family, who are still working within the palace system.” Trying to diminish her again, this time as a copyKate. And implying that the white women didn’t get upset and leave, so why did you? This game of spot the dog whistles is getting so easy it’s barely fun to play anymore.

    • C-Shell says:

      It’s NOT fun to play anymore and it’s beyond insulting to compare Meghan’s many many years of EFFECTIVE and global activism to the pathetic, wimptastic patronages of the royal white women.

      • Nicki says:

        Yes, exactly. Meghan was only 11 years old when she got Proctor and Gamble to change a sexist nationwide advertising campaign. Just whose royal footsteps was she following then?

      • Christine says:

        This! God, why is a strong, independent woman such a challenge for these people?

    • Chloe says:

      It also reaffirms that Meghan is singled out. Because if other royal women did activism why was only hers deemed controversial? I can only think of 1 reason.

    • Swaz says:

      This article just confirms that Meghan’s work and huge success is really eating their heart out. This article came directly from Charles, now they are trying to align themselves with what Meghan is doing 🙄 TEAM MEGHAN ❤️

    • Debbie says:

      I don’t think it’s an attempt to “diminish” Meghan this time, and it’s certainly not suggesting that she’s copying Kate. Perish the thought. No, I think it’s someone who cannot deny the impact of Meghan (and Harry’s, really) work ethic and charitable service. So, they do what all propagandists do in such circumstances, they’re trying to co-opt Meghan’s work by linking it to past royal women’s hand shaking and waiving. (God forbid they should remark on Meghan’s work or give her some credit). I noticed that after trying to destroy Diana in the press after her divorce, they’ve repeatedly tried to link her post-divorce charitable endeavors to the royal family as well. It didn’t work with Diana, and it won’t work with Meghan either.

    • lleepar says:

      The only current working royal who came close to engaging in actual “activism” is KC3 himself. As POW, he actually used write and phone ministers and members of Parliament to advocate certain policies. However, the establishment used to go bonkers whenever he was caught doing it, and he had to pinky-swear he’d stop. So seeing a reporter now trying to hold up the female royal married-ins as activists is ridiculous.

    • goofpuff says:

      The only activist they had in the Royal family before Meghan was Diana. And we all saw how they tried to destroy her like they did with Meghan. Activism goes against the Tory/Royal agenda.

      • Flowerlake says:

        Agree with you about the recent royal family and the Tory agenda.

        If we go much further back, I’d say Anne Boleyn and especially Catharine Parr were activists for the reformation.

        Even further back, I’d say Queens like Mathilda of Scotland were very much into improving the life of the common people by charity, improving infrastructure etc.

        Interesting detail is that the Norman court made fun of her too, for being too old fashioned and “Anglo-Saxon”.


      As my toddler daughter used to say, “This makes me want to vom”. She always thought vom was the verb and “it” was whatever you brought up.

  2. Snuffles says:

    These mutha fuckas are trying to appropriate Meghan’s activism. Is there nothing they won’t try to claim as their own?

    • Becks1 says:

      It just reminds me of the whole #katemiddletonsuccessstory

    • Sugarhere says:

      The appropriation of the Duchess of Sussex’s work method comes in the shape of:

      – REWRITING THE NARRATIVE THROUGH TIMELINE REVERSAL. Meghan is not credited for instigating a work trend all the RF (= Royal + Feckless) painstainkingly emulate. She is being robbed of her pioneering initiative.

      – INVESTING IN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY. 3 years ago, Katren & Willain were very disdainful of social medias, which they considered to be a means of communication for the peasants. It took the Duchess of Sussex for them to realize that facetiming and zoom conferences were useful tools. That’s also when the then Cambridges decided to upgrade their social media profile with the help of bots.

      – PEEING THEIR SILK UNDERWEARS AT THE REALIZATION THAT SERVICE IS INDEED UNIVERSAL. The insulated royal parasites believed in earnest that the Firm, only the Firm, and nothing but the Firm could provide the Sussexes with the work environment for philanthropy. They were proven wrong. The fact that Henry and Meghan’s are even more active in charity work without the RF’s label, gashed and cut into their bruised egoes.

    • dina says:

      THIS. They are all so unhinged and gross, I cant


      They see where Archetypes is heading, they are bilious green over the Ripple of Hope award, Smart Works and the Together Cookbook are ongoing smash hits that keep on giving. In the face of all that evidence they cannot diminish Meghan so they are leaping on her bandwagon. This is raising “if you can’t beat em, join em and steal it” to an artform

  3. Maxine Branch says:

    Really pathetic those folks in the UK trying to claim the word “Activist” for the members of that family. Agree with you there is a big difference between “activism”. And “advocacy.” Did the Queen build a woman’s shelter for abused women? Have any of the women members of that family raised money or built shelters for those in need? Have any of those women help get a cookbook published which raised enough money for women to build businesses off? Meghan while a member of that family continued the work she was doing prior to her marriage. What you get from those Windsor women are “sound bites,” nothing tangible. Activist, nah, barely advocacy.

    • Chloe says:

      Advocacy is even too big of a word for whatever the other royal women do. What they do is visit a charity to go and see how the rest of the country lives and then they go home to the palaces. It’s like visiting a zoo for them.

      • Sugarhere says:

        You’re spot on. Royal women take a handful of visits to certain charities and perform predictable perfunctory exercises that are solely customized to lure us away from their parasitical lifestyle.

        It is Meghan’s stamina and innovative approach that drove Catherine Middleton to detransition from aristocratic idleness to a yet-not-so-effective work schedule. The Royals can credit Meghan for phasing their antequated ways out and injecting some sense of connection between the aloof meanarchy and the people.

        Now whose fault is it if kate looks like a Mother Theresa decoy rather than a genuine empath, especially when she turns up empty-handed and curly-headed like a possessed Victorian doll!

  4. M says:

    The Princess of Pie Charts is an activist?? Give me a break. Showing up for 30 minutes in a copycat outfit, twirling your hair and saying meaningless gibberish is not activism.

    • Well Wisher says:

      Duly noted.

      Meghan has charted her own path in terms of volunteerism and advocacy long before ever having met her now husband, Prince Harry.

      It was used against her because of her rapid success when she was living in the UK, now that she has left, the Telegraph seem unable to “leave well alone”, as demonstrated by this silly article.

  5. SomeChick says:

    I just can’t get over them referring to CamZilla as “the queen.” She’s not the queen, she’s the queen consort. THE queen is still THE queen. What a slap in the face! Have they no respect?!

    • Becks1 says:

      That caught me off guard too, but as a practical matter, that’s what she is. She’s the queen. You usually never heard a queen consort in the UK referred to as such. It was Queen Elizabeth (the QM), Queen Mary, etc. Camilla being referred to as just Queen was always inevitable once it was announced that she would be queen and not princess consort.

      • Emme says:

        Camilla is only “a” Queen (strictly Queen Consort) not “THE” Queen.
        THE Queen was Elizabeth the Second.
        Camilla is just a married-in like Queens before her who married Kings.

      • Becks1 says:

        But as a practical matter, an article isnt going to say “a queen has made domestic violence a cornerstone of her campaign.” It’s going to say “the queen has made domestic cornerstone.” They’re not going to say “today A queen made X visit.” It will say the Queen.

        If you read old articles or listen to old news reports about the Queen Mother they definitely say “the queen.” And she was just a married who married a king. (well duke at that point.)

        They’re only using Queen Consort now constantly because of the confusion you see right here. That will probably fade away over time (or maybe not.)

        No one is going to “A Queen” when talking about Camilla.

    • SAS says:

      I honestly had to read it 3 times, I kept going “but I don’t recall the Queen ever mentioning domestic violence?” Invisible contract in FULL view, I see.

    • equality says:

      But is it correct to call her “THE queen”? I was picturing QE. At the least shouldn’t it be “Queen Cam” with her name cited?

      • Nick G says:

        It is, as upsetting as it may be, absolutely correct to call her the queen whether she be consort or regnant. That’s what she is. Queens don’t have the power to make their husbands kings; kings can make their wives queen.

        Edit: as Kingston says below.

      • Carrie says:

        Agree. It should be Queen Camilla. QE was alive for so-oooooo long that when we read Queen we automatically think of her. Apart from that I still heave at the fact that it is not Diana but Camilla who is Queen. Sometimes nice guys do finish last. Diana paid the highest price – her life. These absolute fkrs.

    • Roop says:

      Right?!? That floored me. I thought they were talking about the late Queen there, and wondered why the sentence was in the present tense and not the past tense. Then j realized that they were talking about Camilla! It’s a little early to be talking about Cams as “the Queen.”

    • Nic919 says:

      The Queen Mother was referred to as the Queen when George VI was king but few of us were around to hear it and we are so used to the Queen being elizabeth and queen regnant that it sounds off. But they didn’t always call the queen mother queen consort.

      Also this is part of why kate is never going to leave despite looking miserable. She would get called this too if she sticks around.

    • Kingston says:

      No respect indeed. Because when phillip was a consort, not a single solitary soul in britain referred to him as the ‘king,’ even tho his wife was the queen. Yes I know all the nuances involved here: betty wasnt just the queen, she was the monarch. Well thats only because ‘queen’ even if she is the monarch, is LESS THAN ‘king.’ So no one ever thought of phillip as king.

      But ‘queen’ is so NOT powerful, that the king’s consort can easily use the moniker ‘queen’ and no one bats an eye, even if its betty that comes to mind in this period so soon after her death, the adjustment is quickly made for camilla.

      So even after 70 years on the throne betty didnt make a dent in the patriarchy. Three cheers for the patriarchy! lmfao

    • Jaded says:

      I vote we all call Camilla the “Mistress Queen”.

  6. Eurydice says:

    Too funny – they’re trying to jump on the bandwagon now that Meghan’s podcast is so successful.

    • FlowerChick says:

      They have finally understood that their younger subjects actually relate to Meghan and Harry far more that William and Kate.

      Also if you watch the second Harry and Meghan film, the implication is that the households separated bc W&C didn’t want to be associated with Meghan’s “activism”.

      Interesting indeed….

  7. Jais says:

    This makes no sense. Isn’t being an activist too woke for the Torygraph?

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Jais, and isn’t it too political? This is so far out there that I would imagine that a lot of people raised their eyebrows and wonder what the royals have been doing behind their backs.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      It’s such a childish and myopic way of looking at activism too. It’s not about who did it first.

  8. Brassy Rebel says:

    First they slammed her. Now they’re co-opting her work. This is such gaslighting nonsense. The part about “the queen” being an activist would be hilarious if it wasn’t so infuriating. And Elizabeth was an activist because she lived a very long time? They are doing self parody at this point.

    • Molly says:

      Yep. When Meghan talked about the wildly woke concept of VOTING, everyone flipped out.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        And remember that time the great activist Elizabeth asked Diana why she couldn’t have some “nicer” charities instead of all those icky ones she had?

  9. Jan says:

    How may years did it take unable to come up with five questions?
    Anne is patron of Save the Children for years, Meghan reading a children’s book raised more money than one of her gala balls.
    When FF comes to the UN with her own photographer, it means her message is not getting out.
    The Iranian actress said yesterday that she knows Iranian women will have a chance of getting her message because Meghan reach is world wide.

    • Maxine Branch says:

      Exactly @Jan Says. No one pays attention to the nonsense coming from that family. If you want global reach, Meghan can get it for you.

      • You are correct Jan and Maxine. No one pays attention to that BS coming for the royal’s propaganda machine. Even the people who like the Royals know it’s all BS. They are still trying to convince the rest of the world that the other Royals are just as worthy as Meghan.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      I know the answer to your question @Jan! Zero. Someone else did. Not very good questions either. Kate the “activist”, was such an activist, that it took the launch of Meghan’s cookbook on Sept. 20, 2018 (first solo project by Meghan), to announce her Early Years thing(Kate’s first solo project after being a “working royal” for over 7 years). “Coincidentally”, KP announced it 5 days before Meghan’s luncheon-when the cookbook was ready to go. KP didn’t say anything about Meghan’s cookbook until Sept. 17, 2018. Jan. 21, 2020 ( about 2 weeks after the Sussex announcement of stepping down), the 5 Big Questions survey is announced. The su7rvey was supposed to have run for one month. Curiously, in May 2020, it was announced that the survey was still ongoing. Claims of so much interest were made. Instead of, lack of interest in Kate’s 5 Big Questions. I believe it was around Nov. 27, 2020, that the patron of Pie Charts released the lol results.

  10. JCallas says:

    The only royal woman who was an activist was Diana and she was attacked for it. There’s a story that she was reduced to tears after HMQ criticized her AIDS advocacy.

  11. Becks1 says:

    So first off, no. Being a patron is not the same as being an activist. I’ll actually give Sophie a bit of credit bc I think her work is a bit more serious than what Kate does. But even Camilla’s work with domestic violence victims is far from being an activist in the area.

    Being an activist is not just visiting a place and saying “oh you’re doing such interesting work” and then moving on and not going back for 6 years.

    And wasn’t QEII’s whole thing that she did NOT advocate for change? that she was just kind of there, unchanging?

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree with you that Camilla and Sophie have at least highlighted issues that deal with women having difficult circumstances.

      But kate has done nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can’t sit on your ass for years and then send out a five question survey prepared by a company that measures nothing and save a closet at KP that is unusued and pretend that is any form of activism. Kate is explicitly inactive and barely counts as a patron much less doing a fraction of the effort an activist would do.

      • FlowerChick says:

        I’ve noticed recently that Kate has started tackling ‘grittier’ subjects – she recently did an engagement on drug addiction.

        I think Charles wants to change the direction of the work the Monarchy do in line with the Princes Trust’s vision. I think that is why this article reads this way – it’s a puff piece for Chuck – a back door way of him validating his own work whilst co-opting Meg’s work and all the while making him look benevolent.

        The reality is the Royals are snobs who do not like engaging in real world problems. The apolitical excuse is just their way of making sure their hands never get dirty – because lets face it they love hanging around despots and accepting suitcases of cash when it suits.

      • Kingston says:

        The royals are all just contemptible barnacles.

        FordFiesta merely jumped on the Summit Against Sexual Violence Against Woman in Conflict bandwaggon which Angelina Jolie helped to spearhead back in 2016 when that first summit was held in London. Since then she has done the usual BRF-PR thingy of turning up whenever the real workers on this issue have an event.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Flowerchick – no, addiction was one of Kate’s early causes. I think Action on Addiction was one of her first patronages.

        @Kingston – Sophie of course does the usual BRF-PR “thingy” but she does more than Kate, as low a bar as that is. She does actually travel to other countries (by herself) and meets with organizations that are working on the issue or supporting victims etc. She’s not going to change the world with her actions, but her work is definitely more serious than what Kate does, which is what I said in my comment.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Becks beat me to it! I was about to say that Kate chose Action on Addiction as one of her very first patronages, back in 2011 or 2012. She just never did anything with it.

        Kate barely does anything and gets TONS of coverage. Anne and Sophie work more, but get very little coverage. So what’s irritating is having the laziest one constantly jammed down our throats as the best, most regal, perfect English rose to ever grace the royal family with her presence.

      • windyriver says:

        “Kate barely does anything and gets TONS of coverage.”

        @Lorelei – and I think this is a major problem for how the general public see the worth of the RF. IMO, Charles (flaws and affiliated issues aside) accomplished a lot of significant value as POW, including but not limited to the Prince’s Trust and other education/training programs. I’ve said I think Harry will discuss Charles as well as Diana in his book as models for his working life. As above, Anne, Sophie (and Camilla?) have projects/patronages with some depth and seriousness (yes, I know there’s an ongoing discussion about whether what they do is really of value).

        But it doesn’t really matter what any of them do, even Charles, really, because it’s Kate and Will who get pretty much all of the coverage, so they have become the standard bearers to the public for what’s considered the “work” of the RF. And they are so clearly lazy and useless at anything they do, that they devalue anything that could possibly be considered worthwhile on the part of anyone else. And thus further highlighting the question – what value does the RF really have, at this point?

        As an aside, there was a quote on Twitter some weeks back about Will – “Anything Harry has accomplished, Will feels entitled to.” The same could be said for Kate; she feels entitled to co-opt anything Meghan’s accomplished – and does her best to do so. What a lovely pair.

  12. Ginger says:

    None of the royal women are activists and it’s insulting to even claim these lazy women as such. Kate doesn’t care one bit about charity work or her early years project. If she did, she would do private visits or behind the scenes work.

  13. CheChe says:

    While it is tempting to ignore this piece of BM propaganda the facts need to be stated. Meghan has a discernible footprint with activism while the remainders have fairy tales to bolster an obvious lie. Better still how about we look at impact of said activism and look at results not statements.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      CheChe, which will become more glaring over time if the brf insist on this “activist” narrative. They should be careful about tying that label to the Firm, because they are incapable of showing the work they simply don’t do. If this is Chuck’s idea, he really needs to rethink what he’s doing.

    • Eurydice says:

      What’s super interesting to me is that Meghan and Harry’s discernable footprints are on the RF, too. The RF are desperate to copy them, as far the royal shackles allow, and that can only be a good thing.

  14. equality says:

    I think they meant to say she followed in the footsteps of Doria, the person who taught her. Funny how Carole can get so much credit for raising Kate but Doria gets ignored. And this article manages to ignore anything that Meghan did in her 35 years of life before meeting the royals.

    • Heyhey22 says:

      Why would they, especially when some of them started that initial disgusting rumor that she was not only in prison but on drugs, and spreaded it all over social media? They are protecting the image of white women, poor Meghan, it’s basically “screw her mom” simply because she’s not “one of them.”😒

  15. Steph says:

    What’s going on with the BM? Today they didn’t mention QCC work with DV and yesterday they were calling her equal to Khadaver.

    I don’t know anything about Sophie’s work but it’s hypercritical to mention any of them considering how they all participated in trying to get Meghan to kill herself while pregnant.

    • Steph says:

      I just started reading through the comments and realized “the Queen” they are referring to is Camilla not EII. Oops.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        Camilla is queen of nothing and nowhere. They’re trying so hard to make it happen.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Steph the same thing happened to me. I was like “what the actual FCK” until someone explained it was referring to Camilla.

      • SomeChick says:

        it’s confusing! I’m going to start referring to her as the queen mistress, as someone above suggested. for disambiguation purposes, ofc.

        she will always be Camzilla to me. (as opposed to Clownmilla Tominey, natch)

      • SomeChick says:

        credit to Jaded for Queen Mistress!

        (in response to my previous comment about Camzilla, which I just noticed is in the mod que)

  16. SURE says:

    Remember when activist K didn’t wear black to the BAFTAs in 2018 in support of the #ME TOO and “Time’s Up” movements.

    • Nic919 says:

      Yes. Kate couldn’t wear black and support women who were victims of sexual assault because that was too political but now she’s an activist? Words needs to start meaning things because this is beyond absurd.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Yes @SURE.. You know who else should remember. Hannah Furness. Writer of this Telegraph article. Furness wrote an article at the end of Feb. 2018-after the first Royal Foundation thing with H&M and W&K. Furness made a point in that article about the palace system’s restrictions on being political. Which, activism is.imo HF tried to say Kate was being supportive to Time’s Up & MeToo by wearing a black ribbon around her green

      Furness knows that these other royal woman are not activists. It’s a sad attempt at something.

      ‘her short time in the Royal Family’? Not, her short time as a working royal. Curious choice of words.

  17. Elizabeth says:

    What has Kate actually really done in terms of the ‘early years’? That ridiculous 5 question survey that said nothing new? That Early Education Centre that she was supposed to be starting that no one has heard anything about it since it was announced? Pippa has done more in regards to early years of children by getting a Master’s Degree, something that Kate had plenty of time do in the years before she and William became full-time working royals in 2016. Kaiser is right, the Royal Women are definitely advocates or patrons but not activists. They are not working or campaigning to change anything.

  18. Amy Bee says:

    The Telegraph is rewriting history. I remember when the press said that Meghan couldn’t be an activist and the Royal Family made her give up her roles at UN Women and World Vision. Now all of sudden the press is saying she was allowed to be an activist as a member of the Royal Family and the other women are activists. Nonsense and lies.

  19. ABritGuest says:

    It’s interesting as I thought the press said their issue with Meghan & things like the Vogue she guest edited is that royals weren’t supposed to advocate for change or be political (can’t work out how that Vogue was but anyway). In 2019 it was all about how Meghan discussing feminism etc was too woke for the royals. So why the huge furore if in fact royals have been activists all this time? The press should have just said they didn’t want Meghan as part of the all white royal family & go.

    I wonder if the royals will lean into their new found reputation as activists or will they risk annoying their royalist base who praised the queen & Kate for their silence

  20. Miranda says:

    I think it’s interesting that the other royal ladies’ activism is mostly confined to rather easy, uncomplicated issues. Which is not to say that those issues shouldn’t be taken seriously — domestic violence and sexual abuse in war zones in particular are extremely serious, but there’s not much pushback or controversy there. No one is coming out IN FAVOR of DV. Meanwhile, many of the issues and causes that Meghan tries to bring attention to are things that the RF has (usually wrongly) deemed “political” and thus off-limits. She would never have been allowed to use her voice this way if she’d remained a working royal, or at least would’ve had to fight for it*.

    *Not sure if this is true, but I’ve read that The Firm actually tried to dissuade Diana from advocating for people with HIV/AIDS. If that’s true, it’s a great example of a royal having to fight to be allowed to speak out about an urgent issue that should’ve been considered apolitical.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Miranda, excellent point. Kate (and the other women in the family) never does anything even remotely controversial, nothing that could possibly provoke any backlash. She goes yachting and plays with scouts. Meghan was accused of aiding terrorism for working with the women in the Grenfell kitchen, ffs.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        IMO, and maybe by definition, an activist says things that are controversial or challenging to establishments. At what point and time, have the other female royals in the current ‘palace system’ done this. Never. Wonder where Lady Anne Glenconner stands with her son dying from AIDS and QE2’s disgust at Diana supporting AIDS patients. Activists my @ss.

        Furness is confusing Kate’s active jazz hands with activism. Surely nothing Kate’s said. Pretty sure, giving tools to babies to raise their babies doesn’t qualify as activism.

  21. Harper says:

    What is this promotion of women in sport that Mumbles is given credit for? Isn’t she the one that ditched her rowing team when Burger King came crawling back? Or piggybacked on Emma Raducanu’s triumph by setting up a photo shoot with her so Keen could show off her tennis skirt? Mumbles does zilch to aid young girls to participate in sports. Occasionally, she will be photographed kicking a ball in her jeggings, but it’s not the same. Furness is just making this stuff up.

    • Nic919 says:

      Kate barely did anything for the women’s rugby team. And she only attend a game in wales after the screw up of only wishing luck to the English team. She doesn’t even properly support female sport when she’s a patron.

    • Lauren says:

      This particular claim annoyed me the most because Kate could easily promote women in sports, it even strikes me as something she might enjoy. She usually seems really happy at the sporty events she does, but maybe that’s because she’s enjoying all the male athletes? All she would have to do is attend womens sporting events and have 1 or 2 events a year specifically aimed at encouraging younger girls to play sports and pursue them as a career. Pretty low hanging fruit that seems ideal for someone as lazy as Kate

      • Lorelei says:

        @Lauren, I definitely think she only enjoys watching/supporting mens sports. The only sporting event she attended regularly (that we know of) is Wimbledon, where she always went to the men’s matches, and she was *always* there the day of the men’s finals. I think that’s all she really cared about.
        Once she became patron of Wimbledon (sorry, the All England Lawn Tennis Club), I guess she realized that she had to start at least pretending to show interest in players and matches other than the championship-winning men, but imo that’s for show, and if it was up to her, she would have continued to only show up during the final weekend.

        (And not for nothing, but it still galls me that showing up to Wimbledon in a dress and watching from prime seating counts as “work” for this twit.)

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate attended only the men’s matches for years and it was not until Serena Williams made the final and Meghan would be there to support her in the royal box that kate suddenly attended the match. Kate did not want to share any spotlight with Meghan who was there to support a friend.

  22. Layla says:

    “ the Princess of Wales focuses closely on the mental health of mothers” I guess that means we’re calling participating in a disgusting smear campaign (and openly lying) leading to Meghan wanting to commit suicide “activism” now

    • Nic919 says:

      She’s actively remained silent going on 4 years and not correcting the story so I guess that’s activism.

  23. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    I agree with you that there’s a difference between activism and advocacy/patronage. Saying early years is important is not activism. After spending literal years going “pRoToCoL” and “she’s being too political!!!111” whenever Meghan said anything and praising Kate for being quiet and knowing her place, this is just a blatant rewrite of history.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      It’s also racism. It was bad when Meghan did it, until the world acknowledged her influence. Now the white women in the RF want to claim a piece of that influence.

  24. HeatherC says:

    “ the Princess of Wales focuses closely on the mental health of mothers”

    This is code for the princess of Wails closely monitored her pregnant sister in law’s mental health to make sure it was crumbling.

    • kelleybelle says:

      Yes, exactly. Every word Kate mutters about mental health is empty and meaningless.

    • Jaded says:

      The hypocrisy is astounding. She ignored, smeared, briefed against, lied and publicly snubbed Meghan while she was having a mental health crisis. With a newborn to boot. All Kate is a mannequin, performative when she has to be, but otherwise doesn’t have a thought in her head about anything other than self-aggrandizing.

  25. lanne says:

    I said a few weeks ago that the royals would start trying to co-opt Harry and Meghan’s successes. Quelle surprise. These people need to be called out, big time.

    They have their own royals. They don’t get to claim Harry and Meghan. They can’t have it both ways.

    • Cessily says:

      One tiny American woman has the entire BRF institution in a panic every Tuesday, as they desperately scream “look at us we’re activist too.”🙄 they all reek of jealousy and desperation.

      • Kingston says:

        Can u imagine how much theyre looking forward to Nov 29 when the season ends? lmao Then they can take a deep breath. lol

        Anyhoooo….as soon as the season ends it will be on to the next big Sussex Thing.
        Theyd better gird their loins!

    • MsIam says:

      Yep, next they will try to claim that Harry modeled Invictus after Earthsh*t lol.

    • QuiteContrary says:

      Also, Harry and Meghan are ours now. No takebacks.

  26. MsIam says:

    These people are so shitty. “The Duchess’s campaigning for women and girls during her two years in Britain included becoming patron of SmartWorks, a charity helping to boost the confidence of vulnerable women by dressing them for job interviews, and a cookbook for the Grenfell Tower community.” No mention of facilitating a clothing collection which helped SmartWorks build a supply of practical interview clothing that the women could get for free. No mention of the money raised by the cookbook and how that helped the Grenfell community. This not what the others do and they know it. Even when Meghan moved away she still advocated for her UK causes. None of them closed due to lack of funding.

  27. kelleybelle says:

    Never mind that Meghan has been an activist since her teen years, right? This low-end tabloid crap grows more shameless by the day, doesn’t it?

  28. Laura D says:

    No matter how they try to steal some of her limelight they can’t. This podcast was superb. Even the anti-woke Telegraph daren’t try to criticise it because of the importance of the messages from both guests. Instead they try to come up with weak examples of how active the “working” women in the BRF are. All three women in Meghan’s podcast are doing things to enhance/defend the lives of women all around the world. They’re not turning up, receiving a posy, getting their picture taken and moving on to the next event. They’re standing firm and telling the world there are things that need to be changed. They have been vilified for challenging the system but, guess what? They’re still here, they’re not scared and they’re still fighting. I cannot think of ONE thing any member of this royal family has done which made me sit back and really think about what I could to do to help like yesterday’s podcast. Absolutely nothing!

  29. ML says:

    This is infuriating. What amuses me about it is that Meghan is on camera back when she was 11 fricking years old explaining how laundry detergent shouldn’t be aimed at only women. Her activism is on public record and they can’t successfully explain that away.

  30. Amy Bee says:

    Another thing, the Royal Family never supported Meghan’s work while she was in the UK so how was she following in the footsteps of the other women?

  31. 2cents says:

    LOL 😂
    The British tabloids are changing their Sussex strategy, because they can’t beat the Sussexes’ global success, they now join the Sussexes…and spin that activism is now protocolproof and “the royals did it first!” 🤣

    Soon they will be writing that ‘palace sources’ told them that William is busy writing a memoir in response to Harry!

    How can British people swallow such vile propaganda as truth?

  32. zebz says:

    It shows more and more that the firm are waking up to what they have lost in Harry and Meghan. Their reputations and that of the UK has taken a huge hit due to the fall out of their own actions. The BRF lost this “fued” and they know it too. Meghan’s success with her podcast has them eating their heart out. The royal family should’ve accepted what was offered, but it’s too late for that now.

  33. Vanessa says:

    I’m not surprised that the British press is trying their hardest to give to somehow tie Meghan real work with Activism’s with the royals . This so shameful Meghan was mocked called all sorts of names by the royal reporters and the British media for years in Activism. Now that podcast is successfully like we all predicted it would be the British media is trying to steal some of that popularity and attach to the woman in the Royals family who all know do nothing for charities work or activism’s. According to William all they can do is offer a smile and few kind words now all suddenly Kate is a activism who does work for mental health . The British media knows that royal screwed up with the unhinged attacks on Meghan they see her success and wanted to try to steal that for Kate . Everything they said was so horrible about Meghan they want Kate to have but she doesn’t so they have to try to steal Meghan accomplishment and give it to Kate .

  34. tamsin says:

    Diana was the activist and she was not mentioned. The Queen was i”nfluential” but no example of how she ever used her influence and got results. The assertion that royal women have always supported the rights of women is so laughable. There is no more patriarchal system than a monarchy. A king is supreme, and can make his wife the title Queen (consort). A Queen, the absence of an available King, has the right to reign on her own, but her husband obviously is not a king. Queen Elizabeth never ever even had a female private secretary. Did she ever have any prominent advisors, or advisors at all who were female? She was always surrounded by men. Anne apparently was quite “active” when she was president of Save the Children. I think Sophie has actually had some real impact regarding eye care, but her other advocacies at the moment seems to be just another voice in the wind. And nothing Kate has done can remotely be seen as advocacy. Going around telling everyone that childhood is important and never going beyond that is not advocacy. I think Camilla promoting literacy and her “book club” are lovely safe royal things to do and still mile ahead of anything Kate does. One thing is clear- Meghan has had a great influence on the royal family.

  35. Snuffles says:

    On The Crown, every episode has a scene where a private secretary is updating their royal bosses on the latest. How the public is reacting or what the other royals are doing or saying and deciding if or how they should respond.

    It tickles me greatly that every week every one of them are getting an update on what’s the latest about Harry and Meghan. And they just sit there and seethe with jealousy as they screech to get their tabloid sycophants on the phone to counteract the narrative. Then their staff have to tell them none of it’s working. OR are we at the point where their staff just lie to them to make them feel superior.

  36. lleepar says:

    I sometimes wonder, if Diana was still alive today, how the “Palace vs. Diana” debates would look now. The Palace tried the same playbook on the Sussexes, but they’re in a position to respond. I think the Palace actually thought they never would.

    • Lorelei says:

      I also don’t think that the palace had a CLUE as to how much support the Sussexes had, worldwide, from both celebrities and millions of randos like us. In their little palace bubble, I think they assumed everyone else viewed Harry and Meghan the same way that they did. They were in for a rude awakening.

      • Becks1 says:

        Agreed. They were okay with the Elton John connection in 2019 (him sending his PJ for them for a trip to. his house in…Nice?) because William had that same EJ connection, more or less. (at least they could pretend he did.)

        But you could tell the Firm and the RRs were rattled by the Tyler Perry connection. And it just kept snowballing from there in terms of big names and celebrities, and that doesn’t get into the “normal people” who support them. People love H&M and no matter what the Firm tries, it doesn’t really change that.

  37. aquarius64 says:

    The Firm is mad that Meghan, the royal it drove out, is held in high regard in many quarters and Cam and Kate are not taken seriously outside the UK. Camilla is the most infamous side chick since Anne Boleyn and Kate chased down her royal target at university to get the ring. Non UK media ( mainly gossip press) talk about their access to the royal jewels and their clothes (well Kate anyway). Their projects, real and imagined, are not reported. Meghan has receipts for her advocacy long before she met Harry, and the Torygragh is really stupid to think no one would be aware or find it online.

    • Maxine Branch says:

      @Aquarius64. Your post speaks the truth and nothing but the truth. No one takes those UK clowns other than the gossip mongers and trolls seriously. At 11 years of age with documentation Meghan was an activist and has never stopped.

  38. Jen says:

    Meghan started doing long before she married in. Marrying Harry amplified her voice, and she’s made excellent use of that, but she’s long been doing the work. We all know the RF, especially W&K, were seething with insecurity and jealousy at just how much she got done in her short time as a “working royal.” And she continues to get more done for her causes than any of the RF ever will.

  39. Kingston says:

    I wonder if these dumbfukks in palaces see what M and her Archetypes team has accomplished in less than 12 weeks/ 1 Season of Archetypes, in terms of brand building & global recognition?

    Hv you guys noticed that the brand: “Harry-and-Meghan” is now on the tongues of people literally from every corner of the world. Without counting the fact that #SSquad has listed members in over 180 countries, several episodes of Archetypes featured women who are popular on continents that are not usually highlighted: South America and Asia (including Korea/Japan/China/India/Taiwan); and Africa and Europe.

    This is one of the main things ive noticed about the choice of guests on Archetypes: theyre global….both in outlook and heritage.

    Whereas the BRF and its sycophants in the bended-knee brigade are becoming more and more proudly insular.

    • Becks1 says:

      It’s one of my favorite things about the podcast….the guests she brings on, because its such a diverse group. I learn a lot about people I didn’t really know before, or only knew by name, etc.


      And that global recognition that Archetype has harnessed is what the RF desperately needs and they are just waking up to it. The RF chased Harry and Meghan out, they gave them nothing and they had to start from scratch and look where they are now; outperforming the rest of the RF. Can Kate and William even hope to keep up with Harry and Meghan? I think not. They would collapse from exhaustion without their 30 day holidays.

  40. katherine says:

    The only thing Kate has ever “mobilized” people to do is get her fans to rush to the Zara, H&M, or the Joules homepage to buy her off-the-rack outfits. The woman has NEVER engaged in anything meaningful, never mind organized anything herself. (Except for the hate campaign against Meghan) She never even acknowledged International Women’s Day until Meghan came along!

    Meanwhile, Meghan is out there calling US senators, urging people to vote, and sending donations and food trucks and coffee to volunteers who are actually getting doing something to change legislation. The difference is night and day.

  41. Dee says:

    Want to have some fun? Angela Rhubarb Levin is insinuating that Megan doesn’t actually interview her guests… or some shit. Well, it looks like her days of tormenting Meghan may be over, because she is getting a lot of pushback. It is glorious.

  42. The Recluse says:

    That’s a heck of a pic right before the comments. They reveal so much about Kate and Meghan. Meghan looks sad and rather sweet. Kate definitely has resting *itch face. Her expression is hard.

  43. bisynaptic says:

    The RF women are activists on behalf of monarchy, patriarchy, and the status quo.

  44. blunt talker says:

    I really agree with what Meghan said about the the word woke-if it mean I am aware of the injustices in my cou ntry and around the world-then you can call me woke because of her awareness-I also liked what Kevin Costner has said about he does not care if you agree with him about certain things but it is his right to have a position about issues and he is not trying to sway you-take it or leave it

  45. sammi says:

    The Queen had sole charge of appointing The Order of Merit. the Crown made a scene with her giving it to Margaret Thatcher. We have now heard that ‘she’before her death (not Charles of course) has put forward six people for the Honour. Surprise, surprise it includes four people of colour and women too! Take a look on Wikipedia at the list of those included in the twenty four eligible for this honour from the time of her control of the membership. It will not surprise you that it did not change much in male, white, priviileged class appointees overall predominance from the time of its inception. Little activism here from QE2!

  46. Chantal says:

    What are you guys talking about? QE2 set many fine examples of activism to influence everyone and especially Meghan. Sure it was passive but still activism. Like when she danced with that Black man (in the 50s? Sorry, no coffee and can’t remember his name but it was scandalous at the time). She also let Black people touch and talk to her without recoiling in horror. She defended Michelle Obama after she was vilified by the BM and the public for daring to put her arm around her. She displayed more activism when she influenced laws and lobbied for financial expenditures that directly benefited the RF, regardless of political and social climate. And then she also…wait. Nevermind…