I wondered too, what Meghan meant when she said words to the effect of: 'When the stakes are so high, doesn't it make sense to hear our story from us?'
What stakes? She is unconsciously revealing the fact that she thinks she is playing in some high profile poker game with the Royal Family. Her statement, dressed up as a question, makes me think that she likes to dramatise herself, and this is what I don't like about her conduct. People of integrity do what they have to do and say what they need to say, and then ignore the surrounding commentary, because they have a more important path in life to focus upon, and they know that the furore surrounding them is temporary, will shift, will die down.
For Meghan, the furore surrounding her is the whole point. She has no actual aim or purpose aside. As a previous poster says, she is not an expert in anything. I don't want to hear her views. There is a very simple way of supporting the good causes which she holds dear, and that is to get rid of her 14 million dollar mansion, with more bedrooms to heat and clean than four people need, and give their surplus earnings and inheritance to the needy. I despise her self-indulgent/ self-aggrandisising lifestyle choice. She needs spacious grounds for privacy, but if she didn't keep herself and Harry in the public eye, she wouldn't have such great security needs. I despise people who flaunt and indulge their wealth in that way, especially when their means of sustaining it are tenuous, as they have no solid foundation of expertise on which to comfortably rest their earning power. Their acumen is almost entirely dependent on their popular appeal.
I think that some people have very good skills for using the media to earn a living. Katie Price is one such British individual who seems to keep her profile in the public eye. The Kardashians make money out of their appeal - but then they also sell products - make up and clothes - which people want to buy. If Meghan brought out a lip gloss that was good, I'd buy it, and would have no objection to her keeping herself as the brand. She looks good and has a universal kind of appeal and can present different styles of beauty very well. I don't want 'victim of the Royal Family' to be the brand, because this detracts from genuine victims.
I don't want to hear what she has to say about service and kindness, and because she is clearly unkind to her father and to the Princess of Wales, and she defies all her stances on the environment with everything she believed in, including the enormous scale of the upkeep needed on her home and her private jetting. Even publishing 'Spare' most of cost a good few trees their lives. She isn't channelling any original initiatives for saving the environment, because she isn't really tuned in that way, and so I'm minded to think the stance is just hyperbole.
It also looks like she is trying to pull down the British Royal Family, which for all sorts of Constitutional reasons, I think is worth keeping. I like the formal way that King Charles and government advisors hauled the whole splendid pageant and machinery of the monarchy into operation for the visit of the South African President. I felt that that performance, which is like the icing on the fruit cake of diplomacy, created good links with African trade partners, and showed an appropriate respect for that country's leader. I think Meghan and Harry f*** up their chance to do something for constructive relationships with the South African people, by, on their visit, moaning about POOR LITTLE US, and failing to be subdued into respectful silent by meeting with teenage girls who are learning self defence skills to escape from would-be racists.
Simple for me, sell the multi- million dollar California residence and give what you don't need to that particular South African women's right project, and I will think again and view the couple with fresh eyes again.