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

[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?

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.

What’s interesting in all of this is that as the heir presumptive, Princess Elizabeth was never the Princess of Wales — since there was always the possibility that at any point, her father could also father a son, who would get the title.

Today she would be. The most impressive thing Catherine, Princess of Wales did as Duchess of Cambridge was successfully lobby to have the primogeniture laws changed when she was pregnant with her firstborn so that the first born of either sex (not just the firstborn son) would be the heir. As it turned out, she had a male firstborn (of course) but the law still stands. Hats off to her.

Meanwhile I erred above in that Charlotte would not be the first-ever Duchess of York since that title was held by Sarah Ferguson through marriage to Andrew.

Well, there have been multiple Duchesses of York over the years — but I’m pretty sure that Charlotte would be the first-ever Duchess of York in her own right, rather than because of marriage, if she gets that title. If that happens, I wonder what her spouse’s title would be? I also wonder if the Princess Royal title will continue to be used.

Great question! Perhaps he would be Duke Charlotte of York?

[Anonymous]

The Royal Family does a LOT of complaining whenever Kate Middleton gets accused of Botox or displaying anything less than saintly behavior... https://www.insider.com/kate-middleton-legal-threat-tatler-profile-furious-increased-royal-duties-2020-9

But will not do or say anything to prevent their actual cronies in the press from saying the most vile things about Meghan.

Hmm. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

Well maybe with good reason. I don't know anyone or any publication who thinks highly of these two

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

Well maybe with good reason. I don't know anyone or any publication who thinks highly of these two

Lol That sounds very limited — and limiting. The worldview beyond Murdoch’s influence is pretty varied, and often quite positive. There’s a big world out there beyond the gutter press and tabloids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Royal Family does a LOT of complaining whenever Kate Middleton gets accused of Botox or displaying anything less than saintly behavior... https://www.insider.com/kate-middleton-legal-threat-tatler-profile-furious-increased-royal-duties-2020-9

But will not do or say anything to prevent their actual cronies in the press from saying the most vile things about Meghan.

Hmm. Interesting.

Can we put this lie to rest please? The palace didn’t complain about Kate getting Botox. They were upset that some med spa was using her as an advertisement. The palace let’s all kind of shit stories about William and Kate run, like that one that called Kate a plastic breeder, or the many articles talking about her social climbing, conniving family.

Harry and Megan are fully capable of defending themselves. They sue the hell out of any media that hints a whiff of untruth. And I must add that the article by Jeremy Clarkson wishing game of thrones type treatment on Megan is truly disgusting and an example of the many nasty articles periodically written about all the royals. Meghan is the first to complain about it and it makes it seem like she bears the brunt of the nastiness, but make no mistake all the royal women get their fair of shit flung at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11558451/Now-Jacinda-Ardern-distances-Harry-Meghan.html

Jacinda Arden distances herself from Harry and Meghan

The full statement just reads more like an explanation of the extent of their involvement. Not distancing herself?

The Daily Mail pretty famously hates Harry and Meghan, among other things. There is a WHOLE lot of shade being thrown in that article, and not just at Harry and Meghan.

Well maybe with good reason. I don't know anyone or any publication who thinks highly of these two

Lol That sounds very limited — and limiting. The worldview beyond Murdoch’s influence is pretty varied, and often quite positive. There’s a big world out there beyond the gutter press and tabloids.

To add: PP, here are a few articles from mainstream publications if you’d like a broader perspective.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/19/harry-meghan-netflix-documentary-us-reaction-uk

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/g13072889/prince-harry-meghan-markle-photos/

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/meghan-and-harrys-netflix-fairy-tale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Royal Family does a LOT of complaining whenever Kate Middleton gets accused of Botox or displaying anything less than saintly behavior... https://www.insider.com/kate-middleton-legal-threat-tatler-profile-furious-increased-royal-duties-2020-9

But will not do or say anything to prevent their actual cronies in the press from saying the most vile things about Meghan.

Hmm. Interesting.

Can we put this lie to rest please? The palace didn’t complain about Kate getting Botox. They were upset that some med spa was using her as an advertisement. The palace let’s all kind of shit stories about William and Kate run, like that one that called Kate a plastic breeder, or the many articles talking about her social climbing, conniving family.

Harry and Megan are fully capable of defending themselves. They sue the hell out of any media that hints a whiff of untruth. And I must add that the article by Jeremy Clarkson wishing game of thrones type treatment on Megan is truly disgusting and an example of the many nasty articles periodically written about all the royals. Meghan is the first to complain about it and it makes it seem like she bears the brunt of the nastiness, but make no mistake all the royal women get their fair of shit flung at them.

Really? I’ve personally never read anything as vile as the Clarkson piece. Not that I really want to read them, but what publications or authors have written things about “all the royals” that’s on that level? Was Queen Elizabeth exempt from this type of treatment? Are they all British tabloids that are publishing these articles? Is this sort of thing prevalent in general — or only focused on the Royals?

As an American, I was surprised that a team of editors had to approve something that, to me, seemed not only racist, but violently inflammatory. Honestly, prior to this mess, I’d read British Vogue, Hello, and a few magazines like Easy Living. While I’m not startled by the racism, I AM startled by the racism and threats of sexual violence that are being openly published in what I’m guessing (?) is considered mainstream press. I’m also startled that at least some members of the British Royal Family are apparently fine with all of this — or at least accept it as being normal.

[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!

The commonwealth is empire 2.0, indeed . The sole purpose of its creation was to help the kingdom save face as it went from having something like 1/3 of the world's land mass under its illegal control to losing it all. What wealth is commonly shared between the UK and say, Kenya or Cameroon ? If the house of Windsor wanted Henry to stay in the firm , perhaps, they should've read the tea leaves and made the necessary adjustments . Alas, old habits (racism et al) die hard. He's never returning to the fold and logically so. As such , he's free to speak his mind. Furthermore, his comments about the commonwealth is widely shared and agreed upon in 'commonwealth' member states long before he even knew he'd someday leave the 'firm'

- signed , someone who was born and raised in a 'commonwealth' member state .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Royal Family does a LOT of complaining whenever Kate Middleton gets accused of Botox or displaying anything less than saintly behavior... https://www.insider.com/kate-middleton-legal-threat-tatler-profile-furious-increased-royal-duties-2020-9

But will not do or say anything to prevent their actual cronies in the press from saying the most vile things about Meghan.

Hmm. Interesting.

Can we put this lie to rest please? The palace didn’t complain about Kate getting Botox. They were upset that some med spa was using her as an advertisement. The palace let’s all kind of shit stories about William and Kate run, like that one that called Kate a plastic breeder, or the many articles talking about her social climbing, conniving family.

Harry and Megan are fully capable of defending themselves. They sue the hell out of any media that hints a whiff of untruth. And I must add that the article by Jeremy Clarkson wishing game of thrones type treatment on Megan is truly disgusting and an example of the many nasty articles periodically written about all the royals. Meghan is the first to complain about it and it makes it seem like she bears the brunt of the nastiness, but make no mistake all the royal women get their fair of shit flung at them.

Pray tell, can you tell me of an instance when any member of the Royal Family was told to parade through the streets of every town in Britain while people throw excrement at them?

The volume and scale of mistreatment faced by Meghan is unprecedented. It is OK to acknowledge that. It's also OK to acknowledge that, yes, the Royal Family will speak out against Kate getting Botox but will not lift a finger to protect Meghan.

[Anonymous]

Coming back to the origin of this post, it’s good to read New Zealand’s Prime Minister comments. She is one the leaders featured in the series. She does not seem happy with the way the show is being advertised.
The interview was made by the Mandela Foundation a couple of years ago. In March this year she was told by the Foundation that Netflix was going to show it. In May she was told H&M were going to introduce it an make some commentary.
She wants to make clear she did not have any contact with H&M and they were not part of the original project.
It's not H&M project or idea, it is Netflix repackaging an old project and misleading the public a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coming back to the origin of this post, it’s good to read New Zealand’s Prime Minister comments. She is one the leaders featured in the series. She does not seem happy with the way the show is being advertised.
The interview was made by the Mandela Foundation a couple of years ago. In March this year she was told by the Foundation that Netflix was going to show it. In May she was told H&M were going to introduce it an make some commentary.
She wants to make clear she did not have any contact with H&M and they were not part of the original project.
It's not H&M project or idea, it is Netflix repackaging an old project and misleading the public a little bit.

I don’t see how that’s misleading at all. Harry and Meghan never claimed they created this film. They’re production partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming back to the origin of this post, it’s good to read New Zealand’s Prime Minister comments. She is one the leaders featured in the series. She does not seem happy with the way the show is being advertised.
The interview was made by the Mandela Foundation a couple of years ago. In March this year she was told by the Foundation that Netflix was going to show it. In May she was told H&M were going to introduce it an make some commentary.
She wants to make clear she did not have any contact with H&M and they were not part of the original project.
It's not H&M project or idea, it is Netflix repackaging an old project and misleading the public a little bit.

I don’t see how that’s misleading at all. Harry and Meghan never claimed they created this film. They’re production partners.

I don’t see how the clarification doesn’t show that not everyone wants to be affiliated with H and M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming back to the origin of this post, it’s good to read New Zealand’s Prime Minister comments. She is one the leaders featured in the series. She does not seem happy with the way the show is being advertised.
The interview was made by the Mandela Foundation a couple of years ago. In March this year she was told by the Foundation that Netflix was going to show it. In May she was told H&M were going to introduce it an make some commentary.
She wants to make clear she did not have any contact with H&M and they were not part of the original project.
It's not H&M project or idea, it is Netflix repackaging an old project and misleading the public a little bit.

I don’t see how that’s misleading at all. Harry and Meghan never claimed they created this film. They’re production partners.

I don’t see how the clarification doesn’t show that not everyone wants to be affiliated with H and M.

Yeah it’s kinda of a conflict when she’s the prime minister of a country and attached to the project of two people waging a public media war against the head of state of another country.

A good reminder that Harry and Meghan dont play in the leagues they want to play in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coming back to the origin of this post, it’s good to read New Zealand’s Prime Minister comments. She is one the leaders featured in the series. She does not seem happy with the way the show is being advertised.
The interview was made by the Mandela Foundation a couple of years ago. In March this year she was told by the Foundation that Netflix was going to show it. In May she was told H&M were going to introduce it an make some commentary.
She wants to make clear she did not have any contact with H&M and they were not part of the original project.
It's not H&M project or idea, it is Netflix repackaging an old project and misleading the public a little bit.

I'll agree with the re-packaging being slightly misleading. I don't agree that Ardern "doesn't seem happy." Ardern put out this statement (as noted in the story) in response to "journalist's questions." It's a totally dry recounting of her history of involvement.

I would be very interested to know what news outlets actually sent questions. Because if it's just the Daily Mail, which is already hostile to Harry and Meghan, then this is just clickbait. Because does any of this really matter other than for gossip purposes? I don't think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

This is exactly what I thought when I read this. Wouldn't their efforts be much better used to shine a light on people doing amazing work who AREN'T the usual suspects? How about an organization helping people who are trying to cross borders for a better life? Or an organization working with people in the poorest parts of the world become self-sufficient? Or, just to be crazy, address the homeless crisis in their adopted home state of California?