As Ever Part 6: Definitely NOT a trad wife

[Strudie]

Previous thread here: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5286597-as-ever-part-v-two-stunt-lemons-with-love-meghan

Carry on! Reviews from the US are trickling in, so far, not so good - https://variety.com/2025/tv/reviews/with-love-meghan-markle-netflix-duchess-of-sussex-1236327469/

I grew up in scandinavia and pancakes were always served with strawberry jam. See also vanilla ice cream 🤪.

I remember reading that Diana took W and H to McDonald’s and insisted they stood in the queue much to the concern of their security .

I think The Wales children were known as George, Charlotte and Louis Cambridge. Now the ware known by the surname Wales just as Harry was known as Harry Wales

Take a look at the discussion earlier in the thread.

Using 'surnames' based on peerage titles is a convention in Britain, but has no legal status outside of Britain. As you know, Harry and Meghan found freedom from Britain. The 'Sussex' name is not recognised in California. Their family name is Mountbatten Windsor, as is on the children's birth certs. It is not 'Sussex'.

Obviously being associated with a British peerage title is incredibly important for Meghan, hence her insistence on using a name that is not actually her legal surname.

the King (ridiculous title in this day and age)

Well, he is King. That is is his constitutional role, as defined by law.

How is it any more 'ridiculous' than a jam seller in California going by the courtesy British peerage title of 'Duchess of Sussex'? Complete with 'office' and little doormat with her coat of arms?

The Vintage Read's theory is this was scripted, but Kaling was supposed to say that she couldn't believe The Duchess of Sussex used to eat KFC (or whatever it was), which would have led to a discussion about fast food she loved. When she used the name Meghan Markle instead, this led to MM's off script, PA speech about being a Sussex.

I'm pretty sure Diana would take her boys to fast food places, or at least get them take aways, because she wanted them to have a bit of normalcy.

Didn't she also take them on the bus? I know that they started visiting a homeless charity when William was about 10. I think that Diana did a good job trying to give them some inkling of life outside the Royal bubble. A lot of people who grow up wealthy don't get that experience.

Where i disagree with Diana was her desire to being William and Harry up the same, I don't think that was good for Harry at all because he was also in a family with a hierarchy and needed to be helped to adjust.

Who asked for your approval of this thread?

If you find it 'nasty', others are available.

And I agree with others that you're trying to stretch a point to try to distract from the complete hypocrisy of the freedom finders trading on their royal titles. I also agree that it isn't working.

yep, from what I've seen she seems pretty loathsome.
From what I've seen the vast majority of the rf seem loathsome.
is that better?

How is it any more 'ridiculous' than a jam seller in California going by the courtesy British peerage title of 'Duchess of Sussex'? Complete with 'office' and little doormat with her coat of arms?

Apparently that's ok, and you are very mean to be talking about it on the eleventy-billionth thread on the topic. I've no doubt King Harry and Queen Meghan would be welcomed with open arms by these confused republicans.

Number 4 in NF TV programs in UK

Number 6 in NF TV programs in US

Yes, I believe she did take them on the bus. IIRC, there's a story about her telling Harry off for being rude to a bus driver.

And yes, from what I have read, she did make foolish promises or tried to extract promises from a young William about the boys being equal in adulthood. She put too much on young shoulders by the sounds of it, and thought she could start a revolution through her children.

The point is that all royal titles are ridiculous.
It's embarassing.

I'm confused.
Are you saying republicans would welcome H and M back to England in some sort of royal role?
You do know what republicans opinion of a royal family is?

Did the paperback of Spare ever appear?

I don't think that's the 'point' the poster was making but she can respond.

And sure, you can say titles are 'ridiculous'. I guess they are. But so long as Britain remains a constitutional monarchy, and this thread isn't about that so let's not derail, then titles make a certain sort of 'sense' within that context. It doesn't mean someone is 'better' because they're called Prince or Duchess or Earl or whatever, just that they are operating within a constitutional framework that is centuries old.

What makes a lot less sense is a CHIMPO and jam merchant in California, who made lots of money complaining about how ghastly the royal 'institution' is, insisting on using both the titles and a surname which is not legally recognised in their place of residence. And what makes even less sense is that those who claim to be 'republicans' would defend that choice.

I don't think any republicans are saying Gine and Whinge should use titles.
That would be a surprising and contrary attitude from a republican

I'm saying certain people posting on this board who claim they are "republicans" would. Yes, I know what an actual republican is, Graham and his blank signs, down with the monarchy, yada, yada.

Edited for clarity.

Which people?
That's really odd ( that people against the monarchy would think that; not your post)

Well I think if I start naming names, I will get deleted. Not falling for that trap.

Yes it would. But yes, there are posters who claim to be 'republicans' who will, as we've seen on this thread, hide behind generalisations about 'choices' and how 'titles are ridiculous' to avoid criticising their favoured royals for clinging to royal titles while living in a foreign republic.

Meghan and Harry live in the USA where titles aren't a thing - when I lived there everyone female was Ms. not even Mrs or Miss. Meg goes on about being a proud Cali girl, yet aligns herself with the poshest British aristos. It's confusing branding again.

This is also the woman who talked about being "linked not ranked".

When Catherine and William sued the French paps, the French Republic styled them Monsieur and Madame Mountbatten-Windsor.

She can call herself whatever she wants, but she also needs to make sure she calls people by their preferred names if she wants the same courtesy extended to her.

I would be interested to know from an American point of view how it works because I assume she should be Mountbatten-Windsor unless changed by deed poll.

Yes, unless they went through the legal process of changing their surname, then legally she's either Markle, or if she changed her name on marriage, Mountbatten Windsor. She can call herself "Sussex" if she wants, but it is just a British peerage convention and has no legal standing outside of Britain. Even in Britain, Archie's birth cert said his surname was Mountbatten Windsor.

And why is she only doing this now, nearly 7 years after marriage?

Just a username won't get you into trouble!

Yes it will. Threads have been deleted for that sort of thing.

Why can't you read the thread if you're curious? This is getting into a major derail.

sorry, but I do think you are wrong.
Nobody who claims to be a republican would have a favoured royal; that goes against the whole point of being against the rf!

I agree.

Meghan should have been building up to this sort of thing for the past 5 years. Little Instagram videos, product promotions, appearances on TV shows and the like. But clearly she had bigger ambitions, to be a global philanthropist and the like.

As you say, you can't just appear one day and demand to be taken seriously as some sort of 'lifestyle expert' if there is such a thing. Also, what's Meghan's niche in this crowded field? She has no real expertise, nor does she seem to have any great enthusiasm or willingness to learn from the experts which might make up for that. I think this is desperation on her part.