Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
New Netflix documentary: "Live to Lead" from Harry and Meghan
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
But why do you give their opinions any weight? Because they are famous. For what? |
Anonymous
+1. The Duke and Duchess title was bestowed on them by the queen and can not be easily taken away. Charles does not have the power to strip them of their titles. Parliament literally would have to pass a law to do this. Even if they were stripped of the Sussex title, Harry would always have the right to be called Prince Henry (and I think Meghan would be styled Princess Henry?). He is a "Prince of the Blood". |
Anonymous
She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did. |
Anonymous
| Andrew's wife is still a princess? |
Anonymous
|
This series was developed any Geoff Blackwell and Ruth Hobday in 2018 and is directed by Geoff Blackwell. The interviews and series are already done and te earlier series of interviews called I Know This To Be True from the Nelsen Mandela Foundation is what is being used for this docu series.
Meghan and Harry have a presenter, voice over role. They will have a script to present the episode and perhaps a comment or two but the series has long been finished before they came on board. They are not involved in the interviews. |
Anonymous
|
They have celebrity power but must find projects unrelated to their family drama as people aren't interested in King Charles and Thomas Markle but stylish royals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/rcna62089 |
Anonymous
Same way celebs put their name on products they didn't develop. Also thanks for the heads up on leaders everyone already knows about. What would be powerful would be leaders we haven't heard of. I mean RBG, Mandela, Thunberg. This reads like the list for the 5th grade project. How about people who haven't been profiled to death already? |
Anonymous
No. Here's how it works: Women who marry "blood Princes" (aka someone who was born into the royal family) take on the title of their husband. But the Queen usually bestowed a Dukedom on her sons/grandsons on the day of their wedding. So if she did not give William the Duke of Cambridge title or Harry the Duke of Sussex title or Andrew the Duke of York title on their wedding days, their wives would be "Princess William," "Princess Henry", and "Princess Andrew", respectively. Not Princesses in their own right but Princesses because their husbands are Princes. But she did give them Dukedoms so their wives took on the female versions of their title - "Duchess of Cambridge," "Duchess of Sussex," "Duchess of York." Prince William became the Prince of Wales so Catherine became the Princess of Wales. She's not technically "Princess Catherine", she's "The Princess of Wales." If a couple divorces, the person who married in's title changes. When Fergie married her title was "The Duchess of York." When she divorced, her title became "Sarah, Duchess of York" as she's no longer *the* Duchess just *a* duchess. If Andrew was to remarry his wife would be "The Duchess of York" and if Sarah remained unmarried her title would still be "Sarah, Duchess of York." But she's no longer "Princess Andrew" since they're not married. |
Anonymous
Diana used "Diana, Princess of Wales" when she divorced because that's the title for a divorced Princess of Wales who did not have the title in her own right. Technically, the title Meghan uses for a lot of her promotional materials is wrong. Her name shouldn't be there at all. The correct way to use her Duchess title is "The Duchess of Sussex." If they were ever to divorce, her title would be "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex." |
Anonymous
These are the interviews. https://www.iknowthistobetrue.org/ I think they are on Youtube. I don't know if this series will use all 12 or what they will do with the interviews. |
Anonymous
+1. And Harry can never be stripped of “Prince” in his name because it’s coded into the whole system of monarchy. And if you start stripping them of their titles, it reeeeeally brings the whole charade down. That whatever they’ve done is an offense worthy of being stripped, but all the other genuinely more significant transgressions are not? That brings into question the entire legitimacy of the whole thing. |
Anonymous
That’s what they’re doing, right? Sounds cool! |
Anonymous
But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous. |
Anonymous
It is their brand. It is what gets them recognition and money. It is what gives them status. Why would they stop using it? |
Anonymous
This. I wish people could objectively look at them. They're not perfect saints and they're not evil horrific devils. Meghan experienced vile racism and they probably handled some things wrong themselves. Their documentary was made by them so obviously was going to make them look good. They want to help people through their philanthropy and position and they're extremely out of touch and get their fame and fortune through their royal connections. They were all for the Commonwealth when they were President and Vice President of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust and now talk about how it's Empire 2.0 because they have grievances with their family. They were treated unfairly by the British press and live a life most of the world's population could only dream of. Many things can be true at once! |