New Netflix documentary: "Live to Lead" from Harry and Meghan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Titles or no titles is a UK problem. It doesn't matter to Americans. Americans can only criticize hypocrisy of denouncing the privilege then milking it to build a parallel empire of money, fame and influence here in USA. Good for them but don't get why people make it a race issue.

Do you honestly think, it would be any different if one of theit four parents wasn't black? All the drama is from them and their white families, not even a single black relative or friend joined this circus. Her mother has been nothing but graceful and minding her own business.

I’m not sure who you mean by “people”. For starters, the English tabloids were — and are — brutally racist towards Meghan, towards Harry for marrying Meghan, and towards their son. If you don’t see it, then you probably don’t want to. Is race the only issue? No. Is race a critical issue that reflects some deeply embedded issues? Yes. And it has not been remotely subtle. NP

Have you read Roxane Gay’s piece in the NYT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

It is their brand. It is what gets them recognition and money. It is what gives them status. Why would they stop using it?

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!

Agree with all of this. Although I think the best thing to do from their end would be to stop complaining and to focus on the good things they want to accomplish. Unfortunately people tune in to hear their personal drama. No one cares that much about their philanthropic work except for their super fans. And since they need money to fund their lavish lifestyle they will keep rehashing the same grievances on Oprah, their books, in their documentary…. AD nauseum until they can’t squeeze out any more money out of the complaining.

[Anonymous]

Just what the world has been waiting for: more docuseries on Mandela, RBG, and Greta. Yawn. Nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Idk I’m looking forward to it. Will at least give it a chance before panning it outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just what the world has been waiting for: more docuseries on Mandela, RBG, and Greta. Yawn. Nothing new.

It’s not new at all. The whole series is based on a series of interviews already published in 2020 called “I know this to be true”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just what the world has been waiting for: more docuseries on Mandela, RBG, and Greta. Yawn. Nothing new.

It’s not new at all. The whole series is based on a series of interviews already published in 2020 called “I know this to be true”.

Meaning you could just read that and skip the Netflix rehash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just what the world has been waiting for: more docuseries on Mandela, RBG, and Greta. Yawn. Nothing new.

It’s not new at all. The whole series is based on a series of interviews already published in 2020 called “I know this to be true”.

Meaning you could just read that and skip the Netflix rehash.

DP - I'm hoping it'll be a fresh take on the interviews and will gladly tune in. Besides, I'd prefer to view rather than read interviews in this format.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

This. Meghan was the American princess when she married Prince Harry. When they left and moved to California, they became a British peer and an American (she had started the process of getting British citizenship but by moving to the US, put that on hold) living in America, living American lives. She could go by Meghan, she has the name recognition - but going by the Duchess of Sussex is the opposite of being an American living in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+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".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

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."

Meghans use is correct. This applies to losing the HRH. As non working royals, who have had the HRH removed from their titles, they are no longer THE Duke and Duchess. They are Harry, Duke of Sussex and Megan, Duchess of Sussex. The HRH was the only thing that could be removed, removing the Duchy would require an act of Parliament, and Harry will always be a Prince as son of the heir/sovereign. Archie is currently entitled to be the Earl of Dumbarton, Harrys lowest ranked title, at his birth, but they refused it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

This. Meghan was the American princess when she married Prince Harry. When they left and moved to California, they became a British peer and an American (she had started the process of getting British citizenship but by moving to the US, put that on hold) living in America, living American lives. She could go by Meghan, she has the name recognition - but going by the Duchess of Sussex is the opposite of being an American living in California.

She could, and she probably uses different names with different levels of formality — just like most of us. Are you suggesting that every time she’s in a different location she —but not he — should change her name to suit the tastes of random people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

It is their brand. It is what gets them recognition and money. It is what gives them status. Why would they stop using it?

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!

Agree with all of this. Although I think the best thing to do from their end would be to stop complaining and to focus on the good things they want to accomplish. Unfortunately people tune in to hear their personal drama. No one cares that much about their philanthropic work except for their super fans. And since they need money to fund their lavish lifestyle they will keep rehashing the same grievances on Oprah, their books, in their documentary…. AD nauseum until they can’t squeeze out any more money out of the complaining.

They talk a lot about doing good. Take a look at Archewell’s financials, though. It seems more like a pass through than a legitimate charity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

No. They are still Duke and Duchess but not longer His/Her Royal Highness. Harry is still Prince Harry. Meghan is not a Princess because she is not of Royal blood but rather married in.

William and Catherine are now the Prince and Princess of Wales. Catherine became Princess of Wales despite not being of Royal blood herself because she is married to the heir.

There is no new Duke of Cambridge.

When William's oldest son George marries, he may become Duke of Cambridge (or may be given a different Dukedom). If William is already King at that point, then George will become the new Prince of Wales.

Prince or Princess of Wales (if the Heir is a woman) is always the title of the direct next heir to the throne.

Then there is the Duke of York. This title is usually given to the second son of the reigning Monarch. Despite Harry being the second son he doesn't have it because the title is being occupied by Prince Andrew still. So most likely after Andrew dies it will pass to Princess Charlotte, and she will be the first ever Duchess of York. That said it is a now pretty ignominious title thanks to Prince Andrew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

It is their brand. It is what gets them recognition and money. It is what gives them status. Why would they stop using it?

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!

Agree with all of this. Although I think the best thing to do from their end would be to stop complaining and to focus on the good things they want to accomplish. Unfortunately people tune in to hear their personal drama. No one cares that much about their philanthropic work except for their super fans. And since they need money to fund their lavish lifestyle they will keep rehashing the same grievances on Oprah, their books, in their documentary…. AD nauseum until they can’t squeeze out any more money out of the complaining.

They talk a lot about doing good. Take a look at Archewell’s financials, though. It seems more like a pass through than a legitimate charity.

You can be sure. It's just a production company set up as a not for profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

If I leave the company I lose my title of CFO though.

Not quite the same. This is a hereditary monarch, based on bloodlines. They lost the title of HRH, but the fact that they are Prince (and technically Princess) and Duke/Duchess is based on familial relations.

She isn't a princess. Her children are Prince and Princess now since QE2 died.
But living in America, why do they still call themselves Duke/Duchess? It makes no sense here and seems kind of ridiculous.

This. Meghan was the American princess when she married Prince Harry. When they left and moved to California, they became a British peer and an American (she had started the process of getting British citizenship but by moving to the US, put that on hold) living in America, living American lives. She could go by Meghan, she has the name recognition - but going by the Duchess of Sussex is the opposite of being an American living in California.

She could, and she probably uses different names with different levels of formality — just like most of us. Are you suggesting that every time she’s in a different location she —but not he — should change her name to suit the tastes of random people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they still the Duke and Duchess when they stepped down from the royal family? Why do we call them prince/princess if they are dukes/duchess?

If William is now the Prince of Wales, is there a new Duke of Cambridge?

Just because they are not "working royals" does not mean they are not part of the family.

Let's say there's a family-run business. Brother decides to leave the business with his wife. They're still "brother" and "sister-in-law". Them leaving the business doesn't mean the paternity bloodwork is going to start coming out different.

+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".

She’d be Princess Henry. If she divorces him, maybe she’d be able to use Princess Meghan like Diana did.

NO I think she is not a princess because she herself was not of royal blood but instead gained it by marriage. You only get to be a non-royal who is called princess by marriage you marry the heir, as Diana did.