General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShe is not Meghan Markle. She is the Duchess of Sussex.
In all the hullabaloo today about Trump calling Meghan Markle nasty one thing is really getting my goat.
Trump calling her nasty is not a surprise. She is a woman of colour who would rather cut off her own head and eat it than meet him. Who could blame her? Of course he is going to be rude about it.
However, she is the Duchess of Sussex and married to the fifth in line to the throne. That in this whole debate today everyone has failed to use her title, like they know her.... just smacks of racism and misogyny.
Just sayin'
-------------------------
Update 2147 GMT
This....
Link to tweet
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)is now a viral news item in the UK. Everyone there will know of it before he arrives.
Harry should publicly demand an apology from Trump, on camera. See how that sits with Donwald.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)But I know this.... we protect our own. Trump can fuck right off. The Royal Family will have the back of the Duchess of Sussex and while they will remain icily polite any point that needs to be made will be...
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)I'd love it to be even more than that, but needs must, I suppose.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)under the royal oaks at dawn.
I bet that would get high ratings.
3Hotdogs
(12,402 posts)Harry gotta make it fair.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)pandr32
(11,605 posts)They view it as a duty fake bone spurs would never exempt them from. They privately must loathe the orange oaf.
sabers at dawn! Harry should demand satisfaction.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)It's just something I don't pay much attention to. But if she pissed off trump I'd call her one of us.
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)Takket
(21,620 posts)rather than their names?
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Although the press tend not to use the more formal Prince of Wales for Prince Charles.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)yellowdogintexas
(22,270 posts)It seems to me that it would be just as easy to use Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge; Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Lazy writing and lowering of standards.
The Duchess of Cornwall is always referred to as such - I can't remember when any writeup about her referred to her as Camilla Parker-Bowles.
This has actually been bugging me all year; these young women are Duchesses by order of HRM Elizabeth II and should be referred to in that manner - not by their prior to marriage names.
Prince Edward's wife is generally referred to as Sophie, Countess of Wessex (I think that is her title) isn't she?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. The Clause is subject to interpretation. Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.
....
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Take it away, Thomas Jefferson (and this is the only time you will see me quote The Daily Worker):
April 28, 2011 11:41 AM CDT BY THOMAS JEFFERSON
As the world prepares for the royal wedding between Prince William and soon-to-be Princess Kate, its important to take a look back at our own American traditions, and what our founding fathers had to say about royalty. We are, after all, a nation born out of a revoultion against a monarchy. With that in mind, we present to you Thomas Jeffersons letter, On the Breeding of Kings. Were guessing that Jefferson wouldnt have been enthused by the pomp and pageantry.
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810
When I observed, that the King of England was a cipher, I did not mean to confine the observation to the mere individual now on that throne. The practice of Kings marrying only in the families of Kings has been that of Europe for some centuries. Now, take any race of animals, confine them in idleness and inaction, whether in a sty, a stable, or a state-room, pamper them with high diet, gratify all their sexual appetites, immerse them in sensualities, nourish their passions, let everything bend before them, and banish whatever might lead them to think, and in a few generations they become all body and no mind ; and this, too, by a law of nature, by that very law by which we are in the constant practice of changing the characters and propensities of the animals we raise for our own purposes. Such is the regimen in raising Kings, and in this way they have gone on for centuries. While in Europe, I often amused myself with contemplating the characters of the then reigning sovereigns of Europe. Louis the XVI was a fool, of my own knowledge, and in despite of the answers made for him at his trial. The King of Spain was a fool, and of Naples the same. They passed their lives in hunting, and despatched two couriers a week, one thousand miles, to let each other know what game they had killed the preceding days. The King of Sardinia was a fool. All these were Bourbons. The Queen of Portugal, a Braganza, was an idiot by nature. And so was the King of Denmark. Their sons, as regents, exercised the powers of government. The King of Prussia, successor to the great Frederick, was a mere hog in body as well as in mind. Gustavus of Sweden, and Joseph of Austria, were really crazy, and George of England, you know, was in a strait-waistcoat. There remained, then, none but old Catharine, who had been too lately picked up to have lost her common sense. In this state Bonaparte found Europe; and it was this state of its rulers which lost it with scarce a struggle. These animals had become without mind and powerless; and so will every hereditary monarch be after a few generations. Alexander, the grandson of Catharine, is as yet an exception. He is able to hold his own. But he is only of the third generation. His race is not yet worn out. And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in His holy keeping.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)And we are talking about reporting in the UK press in the main..
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)His tendency to blurt things out is strong. His disdain for women, too, is a powerful force in him.
He is also very clumsy and inept in social settings, and will struggle with the proper, polite form of address.
So, if you combine all of those tendencies in the man, blurting out "Hi, Lizzie," is not such a stretch for the imagination.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,363 posts)Lazy Lizzie, Loser Lizzie, Lame Lizzie, testing each with opinion polls.
He'll have something to say about not riding in a golden coach.
genius
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,211 posts)isn't much of an exaggeration.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)in the UK. I was wondering why anybody in the US would get so worked up over that crowd.
Most people here don't take it that seriously.
I'll lighten up. Sorry.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)I not a royalist, but I hate that there is a double standard. It pisses me off
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)Nixon tried to introduce royal uniforms for the White House police back in the 1970s. That didn't go over too well. It's just the sort of thing that Trump would think was a swell idea.
I predict Trump will revive Nixon's palace guard uniforms.
by Megan McArdle
August 19, 2013 7:00 AM
Its a Monday in the middle of August, and we could all use a break. So lets go back in time to January 1970, when President Richard Nixon was preparing for a visit from Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Nixon, who thought his White House uniform guards looked slovenly, had them outfitted in new uniforms, based on the honor guards he had seen, and been impressed by, in Europe.
My husband, upon seeing this, immediately said Oh my God, those look like marching band uniforms! You can kind of picture them sticking a flute in those holsters, cant you? If an enemy charged the White House, they could quick-draw and start fifing away. Give em the old Yankee Doodle Dandy, boys!
The public reaction to the new uniforms was not good. Heres how Richard Reeves describes it in President Nixon, Alone in the White House:
A couple of days after the State of the Union address, Democrats and the press finally got a chance to mock Nixon. The occasion was a state visit by Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Great Britain and the official unveiling of new White House police uniforms, inspired by the honor guards Nixon had seen in Europe. The cops were wearing double-breasted white tunics with starred epaulets, gold piping, draped braid, and high black plastic hats decorated with a large White House crest. They look like old-time movie ushers, said the Buffalo News. The Student Prince said the Chicago Daily News. In the Chicago Tribune, a Nixon friend, columnist Walter Trohan, was more serious, saying the uniforms belonged onstage, calling them frank borrowing from decadent European monarchies, which is abhorrent to this countrys democratic tradition.
The uniforms didnt last long. The black hats were the first to go, and by the mid-1970s, the whole uniform had been abandoned. In 1980, the barely-used uniforms were repurposed as yes, you guessed it, the uniforms for the Southern Utah State marching band. Apparently, the college beat out rock singer Alice Cooper, who had wanted five of the tunics for his band. The marching band paid the General Services Administration $90 for shipping, plus a charge for cleaning and pressing.
Theres no larger point to this except, I guess, that we democracy-loving Americans dont want any movie ushers or fife-and-drum corpsmen on the steps of our White House. I just figured we could all use an afternoon laugh.
January 1970: The White House guard (secret service uniformed division) publicly revealed their new uniforms which featured a white, double-breasted tunic with gold shoulder trim and a stiff shako hat with peaked front. They replaced the black uniforms the guards had previously worn on ceremonial occasions.
President Nixon had ordered that a new uniform be designed after he had seen what palace guards wore in other countries and had decided that the White House needed something as fancy.
Marcuse
(7,506 posts)JI7
(89,262 posts)markle had a life and career and they aren't much into the royalty thing but show respect by accepting some of the things expected of them.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)their maiden names in the press and not their titles or married names? This is something that has always irritated me.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)OldEurope
(1,273 posts)Soph0571
(9,685 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)The Mountbatten family is a European dynasty originating as a cadet branch of the German princely Battenberg family. The name was adopted during World War I by family members residing in the United Kingdom due to rising anti-German sentiment amongst the British public. The name is a direct Anglicisation of the German Battenberg (literally Batten Mountain), a small town in Hesse. The title of count of Battenberg, later prince of Battenberg, was granted to a morganatic branch of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt, itself a cadet branch of the House of Hesse, in the mid 19th century.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Unsure what your point is?
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)Yet think theyve got some kind of new discovery that they need to show all of us. Kind of pitiful, really. But also made me chuckle.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)Also Prince Albert, has anyone let him out of the can?
whistler162
(11,155 posts)LakeArenal
(28,837 posts)Perseus
(4,341 posts)I don't know the press goes to the constitution, or anywhere else to find out how to call them, it is protocol to call them as their title demands.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)pure and simple. Ponzi Don thinks Ivanka is the Princess. You can not fix the Stupid.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)Lulu KC
(2,572 posts)CottonBear
(21,596 posts)The incompetent White House staff cant even get the Queens title correct. They failed to refer to her as Her Majesty In recent official communications.
Where are the diplomatic and protocol experts?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,829 posts)along with everybody else who knew how to do anything.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It irritates me that they are even going. I feel like this whole thing has been forced.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)That we have to do this is irritating beyond belief - apart from anything else, whatever trade deal we get will not be worth the paper it is written on - we will be at 25% tariffs within 6 months based on Trumps record...
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It just won't be one that will favor the UK. He will be all smiles and charm and then screw you over at the last minute. A snake will always be a snake.
Ohiogal
(32,047 posts)That crime family is getting way too much hospitality from the Royal Family that they dont deserve. I would love to see Harry punch that orange ignoramus and knock him on his fat ass.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I hope at the very least they humiliate him to death.
tritsofme
(17,398 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)tritsofme
(17,398 posts)CottonBear
(21,596 posts)AND of American citizens.
tritsofme
(17,398 posts)CottonBear
(21,596 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2019, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)
You can call her what you wish, but the POTUS cannot.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)yellowdogintexas
(22,270 posts)I think it is just laziness on the part of the press myself.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)in the Constitution?
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You are correct in relation to foreign dignitaries. If she remains a US citizen, then it is improper to recognize a title of nobility bestowed upon a US citizen.
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)would be polite to refer to her by her new married name as a courtesy, especially since Dolt45 and his grifter clan will be meeting both her husband and her in-laws.
She is is the process of applying for U.K. citizenship. I wonder if shell give up her US citizenship when she gets her U.K. citizenship? The US taxes on expatiates are very heavy and apply even if she never lives in the US again.
Totally Tunsie
(10,885 posts)Princess Grace:
She married the ruling head of the country, but retained her U.S. citizenship by carrying dual citizenship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Kelly
Queen Noor:
American, married to King Hussain of Jordan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Noor_of_Jordan
Only tRump could or would be so boorish as to defile either woman, which means it might easily happen.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,593 posts)I was much an enemy to monarchies before I came to Europe. I am ten thousand times more so, since I have seen what they are. There is scarcely an evil known in these countries, which may not be traced to their king, as its source, nor a good, which is not derived from the small fibres of republicanism existing among them.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)at least the British Royalty have rules and abide by them. and, as was pointed out, they all served their country, even the Queen and Prince Phillip and William and Harry and Charles and Andrew.
CatMor
(6,212 posts)yet owned slaves.
fierywoman
(7,690 posts)suffering under.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)That is how it really was. No women or anyone else not a white man.
BannonsLiver
(16,439 posts)I guess its supposed to mean something?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)But they probably don't drive your narrative as well.
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)The Duchess of Sussex is now a member of the British Royal Family. However, she is also still a taxpaying American citizen at this time.
Trump has not only insulted her as a woman of color who is now a member of the British Royal Family, but he has also insulted and degraded an American citizen.
Her full title is Her Royal Highness Princess Henry, The Duchess of Sussex.
She is styled as HRH, The Duchess of Sussex.
She takes her title through marriage. She is not a Princess in her own right. Neither was her mother in law. Harrys mum was HRH The Princess of Wales. After her divorce she was given the courtesy title Diana, Princess of Wales. She was never titled or styled as Princess Diana.
It is a 3-5 year process to become a British citizen. The Duchess of Sussex has completed the proper paperwork for visas and citizenship applications, but she has to go through the same process as everyone else.
renate
(13,776 posts)And The Duchess of Cambridge is still often referred to as Kate Middleton.
I agree with you that she is no longer Meghan Markle but I dont think any disrespect is intended.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,358 posts)for UK searches for their usual pre-marriage names and their titles:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2009-06-01%202019-06-01&geo=GB&q=kate%20middleton,meghan%20markle,duchess%20of%20cambridge,duchess%20of%20sussex
After their marriages, their old names are far more commonly searched than their titles.
Crunchy Frog
(26,629 posts)of the royal family.
I remember when Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson, she was generally referred to as "Fergie".
Just now, checking on the Wikipedia article about Diana Princess of Wales, she's referred to simply as "Diana" pretty much throughout the article, which is how I remember it from back when she was alive.
I believe that I've also often seen William and Harry referred to as "William and Harry".
My point is that I don't think there is any disprespect intended by it, and I don't think that she's been singled out in this respect. Maybe Americans are, overall, simply more informal?
liberaltrucker
(9,130 posts)Coventina
(27,169 posts)Solly Mack
(90,780 posts)Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie.
She is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
No skin off my nose to address her as such.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)I forgot about Prince Charles! Whoooooops!
Solly Mack
(90,780 posts)Indeed.
onecaliberal
(32,888 posts)dawn5651
(604 posts)is meghan mountbatten-windsor the duchess of sussex as she wasn't a princess when she married she will probably be known as princess harry although not likely.
JI7
(89,262 posts)she took on for marrying into that family.
she is still Meghan markle who had a public life and career as MM before getting married .
and him saying horrible things about non royals doesn't make it any less worse.
Princetonian
(1,501 posts)Kate Middleton was referred to as such for many years.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If she is still a US citizen, then the US government does not recognize her as the Duchess of Sussex.
Kind of Blue
(8,709 posts)From what I've read, if the couple wanted to give baby Archie a title they could have gone for Earl of Dumbarton but Rejected it, saying they wanted to keep things less complicated for the baby.
I hope she continues to be herself, very Meghan Markle, as we know her with absolutely no disrespect on this side of the pond.
Coventina
(27,169 posts)I'm not supporting Trump's asshole-ery.
But I'm also not supporting the peerish asshole-ery either.
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)I get to be irritated when a strong independent woman, who has made history, is shown disrespect like this. She is a breath of fresh air, and for the first time women from minority communities see a black woman at the very heart of the establishment. That matters, and for the British press to not recognise her title matters. If we want to see a permanent cultural shift, it really matters.
Coventina
(27,169 posts)elevated by her marriage to a man.
No, she elevated HIM, because he was known to be quite the asshole in his younger years, but seems to have recovered somewhat.
But, I'd respect both of them a whole lot more if they renounced all that peerage foolishness and he took her name.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,358 posts)Christopher Guest is actually the 5th Baron Haden-Guest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Lee_Curtis
Soph0571
(9,685 posts)The Duchess of Sussex is a member of the Royal Family. I am not a royalist, but the coverage today really bugs me. I see racism and sexism in bucket loads...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,358 posts)so I don't think it's racism. And men who marry into the royal family also retain their own names, on the whole - Princess Anne's 2 husbands both continued with their own names and no title, for instance. So I don't think it's sexism either. You might say it's seeing her as a continuing individual, rather than using a title that comes from her marriage, and could in the future refer to someone else (for instance, as with "Duchess of Gloucester" - a title previously held by the current one's mother-in-law).
Kind of Blue
(8,709 posts)Just seems like whitesplaining a view that doesn't exist in deciding what the actual use of her title means to black Brits. To me it's a small thing given what black Brits face in a country where hate crime has increased in the past year as well as increased racial bias in policing.
From what I understand there are 3 other women of African descent in the royal family, one who's still alive, Emma Thynn, who we never hear of. I think because her title has done nothing to help race relations. But good optics for the royal family though.
I just don't remember any cries of sexism when Princess Diana, loving referred to as just Di, or Fergie came on the scene.
tblue37
(65,483 posts)Moderns are quite casual about such things.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,591 posts)The Duchess of Sussex represents everything he detests: she's a smart, beautiful woman of color, who is accomplished, articulate, opinionated, and was not "helped by the Russians" to achieve her current position. He not only hates her, he's scared to death of her.
Plus, she is viewed as an equal to Prince Harry, not a bought-and-paid-for trophy wife.
Fat Donnie is running around proclaiming, "The British people love me." The staff is going to have to block out the windows on Marine One (or the British A.F. equivalent) so he won't see the 200,000 protesters who plan on bring London to a stop during his visit. I hope the helicopter make it a point to fly by the "Crying Baby Trump" blimp on its way to the Palace.
I wonder whether the Queen will wear the same brooch that President Obama paid for out of pocket as a personal gift to Her Majesty, as she did the last time Fat Donnie visited.
Nitram
(22,861 posts)have historically had little use for titles. The banning of titles by the Constitution was a radical departure from custom at the time, and reflected a democratic distaste for titles. The president is referred to as "Mr. or Ms. President." In diplomatic situations, of course, titles must be used.
Cha
(297,574 posts)snail shite. he's not worthy of speaking the Duchess of Sussex' name.
patricia92243
(12,598 posts)USALiberal
(10,877 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)"Duchess of Sussex" on the news or among the general public, 99.998% of them will instantly respond with "WHO?!?"
But when you use the name or say "that black woman who married into the royal family", everybody knows instantly...
brooklynite
(94,716 posts)...even if I was British, it's a meaningless title, since she and her children are not in the line of succession. Plenty of people here refer to "Jeremy Corbyn" and not "the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition".