Harry & Meghan 8: Time's Most Insufferable

[EmCatlyn]

I completely agree that religion has very little to do with Harry’s alleged wish to have Lili christened.  If they were motivated by religion, they would have had her baptized already at whatever church they were attending in California. (My understanding is they are not attending any.)  Christening is an important ritual for believers and they would not delay it unnecessarily. 

(My husband, a cradle Episcopalian, is very sad that his daughters have not chosen to baptize their kids.  He feels they are depriving the kids of a blessing. He doesn’t tell them, but it bothers him.)

I agree that Harry’s interest in christening Lili at Windsor would be grounded in social custom.  He wants Lili to have the same christening as Archie and he himself did.  He may be aware of the centuries of tradition and want Lili to have some share in that.  I don’t fault him at all for this. (I am big on rituals and traditions as outward expression of inner feelings.) 

The reason that one might fault the Sussexes for wanting to christen Lili at Windsor is not that their motivation is not religious but more “cultural” and “familial” but that they may actually be mostly motivated by wanting to remind the world of their royal standing.

We will have to wait and see, but I hope that if they do not get the Windsor christening they want they won’t start a narrative of how poor Lilibet was rejected by the royal family because she wasn’t white or something like that.

 

 

[viii]

IF Harry and Meghan do wind up getting Lilibet christened at Windsor, I think there will definitely be photos with Prince Charles and the Cambridge clan. The royal family has perfected the heart of smiling and playing nice when they'd rather be anywhere else. 

[just_ordinary]

3 hours ago, viii said:

IF Harry and Meghan do wind up getting Lilibet christened at Windsor, I think there will definitely be photos with Prince Charles and the Cambridge clan. The royal family has perfected the heart of smiling and playing nice when they'd rather be anywhere else. 

I agree. And I think PC and PW should try hard to make an appearance happen if it will take place in the US. I think they will rekindle at one point, even if H&M will never step in official royal roles again. It would be a shame to miss an occasion like that due to a rift right now. And it will only deepen any grudge they hold. I do hope the Windsors (like many families) realise this and play nice and civilised at big family events. H&M children might get their desired titles later (or maybe never) but they absolutely can and should have warm family relationships with their grandfather, uncle, aunt and cousins. IF H&M decide they want to cut off his family completely it’s a different story. That’s their prerogative. But I would like to believe that in 5 years time the relationships are more amicable again.

Edited October 18, 2021 by just_ordinary

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I agree. And I think PC and PW should try hard to make an appearance happen if it will take place in the US. I think they will rekindle at one point, even if H&M will never step in official royal roles again. It would be a shame to miss an occasion like that due to a rift right now. And it will only deepen any grudge they hold. I do hope the Windsors (like many families) realise this and play nice and civilised at big family events. H&M children might get their desired titles later (or maybe never) but they absolutely can and should have warm family relationships with their grandfather, uncle, aunt and cousins. IF H&M decide they want to cut off his family completely it’s a different story. That’s their prerogative. But I would like to believe that in 5 years time the relationships are more amicable again.

It is very unlikely that Prince Charles and Prince William could just fly to the US for a christening.  They have plenty of other work, and there would be the question of who should bear the cost of their security, transportation, etc.  if they were traveling purely on family business.

FWIW, I have read speculation that Michael Curry (the Episcopal Presiding Bishop) could christen Lilibet in the US, and I have to say that if he does I will be very disappointed in him.  

It is one thing for him to have gone to England to speak at Meghan and Harry’s wedding.  That was something of an international event, and as the chief American bishop in the Anglican Communion, it was appropriate for him to be part of the wedding of a  American into the British royal family.

But Harry and Meghan are private citizens in the US.  They have no claim on the presiding bishop.  They aren’t involved in any major Episcopal charities or initiatives.  They aren’t even, as far as we know, regular church-goers.

So if Meghan and Harry have anything other than a quiet christening with a parish priest, I think that would be an undue privilege. (Incidentally, a typical Episcopalian christening takes place during a regular service and may include more than one child being christened at the same time.  I could grant that for security reasons the Sussexes might get a private christening of their daughter, but not that they would get a bishop to perform the ceremony.)

Back to the family question, if they can manage a quiet christening at Windsor when the Sussexes next visit the UK, then definitely Prince Charles and Prince William should be present.  Right now, however, it doesn’t seem likely.

The time it should have happened was around now. The Sussexes could have flown in for the dinner honoring Diana and spent a week or so at Frogmore cottage from which they could visit the queen and have a quiet, very private, christening with godparents, some immediate family members and a priest.

That it didn’t happen now suggests it may not happen at all.

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn I disagree on both accounts. PC and PW have been able to travel to weddings and christening all over the world, in royal and private capacity. Security and travel were no problem for the private occasions. Neither was their work schedule. Even when their attendance was public knowledge before the date. I think if H&M don’t drum up their being there and give enough time frame to schedule it in, they are perfectly able to make it happen if they want to. And I think they should. L deserve it, and they won’t break a leg to take the high road (is that the right phrase??).

I also think if Bishop Curry wants to christen Lili that’s absolutely fine. It’s his decision really. They cannot make him, but I am pretty sure he is the only pastor they personally know in the US. I don’t find it weird to ask a priest/pastor you have at least some relationship with to perform the christening instead of a stranger. And many are very willing and happy to accompany the religious future of couples/families and feel honoured to be asked. It sounds pretty normal to me, but maybe because here it happens very frequently that people ask the person that officiated their own christening/confirmation to do the wedding or christening if they are not unreasonable far away. It’s not as if the christening gets more special because he is a bishop. Most people in Europe have no involvement with their church at all. They show up for Christmas and maybe Easter and very few in between. Most don’t even know their pastors name (or if their church is Unitarian/Lutheran/Reformed)- easier in the UK where CoE would probably be the default, but I wonder if anyone would truly notice the difference. H and I assume M as well are cultural Christians. So there is no surprise they are not involved in any churches. That doesn’t mean that cannot christen their child into one though. If the church doesn’t mean, why should we? That’s pretty much standard. If you just want to do it for the cultural aspect it’s also not that important if it’s Lutheran, CoE or Episcopalian or whatever. So, I think it’s fine. Christen wherever you want, choose the godparents you want and ask whoever you want to officiate. If they make a massive spectacle out of it I would raise eyebrows but I doubt it. They try to keep to children pretty hidden. And I am sure if they don’t get the HMTQ with L picture it will stay that way for a bit longer. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by just_ordinary

[viii]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It is very unlikely that Prince Charles and Prince William could just fly to the US for a christening.  They have plenty of other work, and there would be the question of who should bear the cost of their security, transportation, etc.  if they were traveling purely on family business.

What? The royal family travels all the time for personal reasons. They managed to go to France for James Middleton's wedding just fine, why wouldn't they be able to go to the US for Lili's christening? They literally travel all over the world for holidays all the damn time. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, viii said:

What? The royal family travels all the time for personal reasons. They managed to go to France for James Middleton's wedding just fine, why wouldn't they be able to go to the US for Lili's christening? They literally travel all over the world for holidays all the damn time. 

Christenings are not the same as weddings and funerals.  People don’t make such a big deal of them.  And traveling to California is a lot more complicated and time-consuming than traveling somewhere in Europe.   So I think it is very unlikely any of the senior royals would make the trip — but I could be wrong. 😉

9 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

….

I also think if Bishop Curry wants to christen Lili that’s absolutely fine. It’s his decision really. They cannot make him, but I am pretty sure he is the only pastor they personally know in the US. I don’t find it weird to ask a priest/pastor you have at least some relationship with to perform the christening instead of a stranger. And many are very willing and happy to accompany the religious future of couples/families and feel honoured to be asked. It sounds pretty normal to me, but maybe because here it happens very frequently that people ask the person that officiated their own christening/confirmation to do the wedding or christening if they are not unreasonable far away.   ….

Bishop Curry is not, as far as I know, a personal friend.  And he is a busy man.   Many American Episcopalians would be shocked if the Bishop made a special trip to baptize their kid when he doesn’t have time to come to this or that event in their parish.

The logical person to christen Lili is a priest that they know in California.   But we will see.  The bishop can do what he wants.

[viii]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Christenings are not the same as weddings and funerals.  People don’t make such a big deal of them.  And traveling to California is a lot more complicated and time-consuming than traveling somewhere in Europe.   So I think it is very unlikely any of the senior royals would make the trip — but I could be wrong. 

They literally travel all over the world for holidays. They can easily go to the US for Lili's christening without it being a huge deal. 

[Xanariel]

I don't see an issue with the same guy who married them christening their child (it actually seems like a pretty nice touch). 

Not sure I can see Harry's family flying in. A trip to the US is a lot more arduous than one to France, and that's assuming the US keeps to its promise to relax the travel rules in November. Less tiresome when you can go in by private jet, but I'm not sure William wants the optics of that for visiting Harry, considering how much criticism the latter has copped for them. 

The fact that Harry and Meghan are clearly filming  *something* also means the royals might be wary of any events where they control the venue (I wouldn't expect the Sussexes to commercialise their daughter's christening, but I think interactions with them are being carefully thought through).

I think Charles wouldn't shun his granddaughter's christening. But the Cambridges don't have much reason to smile for the camera unless things thaw significantly. 

Everyone knows they've fallen out, so there's no need to pretend. The two times William has appeared with Harry since the interview were both about honouring a separate older relative. William by all accounts was furious with Meghan even before the interview, and then she publicly brought Kate into things which he was apparently enraged over. 

Not sure he'd be going out of his way to play happy families with her now, especially as the Sussexes have a book they're holding back until after the Queen's death. 

[just_ordinary]

True, weddings and funerals are a bit more high profile. But I would argue that the wedding of your (ex girl-)friend in South Africa is not as important as your niece’s christening. A niece you never had the chance to meet in person. Is it harder than travelling Europe? Sure, but let’s be honest: They can hop on a chartered private jet and basically be back and forth in 48h if they wanted to and their schedule is that tight. They managed just fine for their holidays for years. They have a lot of privileges going for them. Same is true for H&M, but in that particular case it’s their decision where to do it and guests are the ones that follow (and I think all their guests have the power and money to make a trip for it happen). Might they hold it in the US out of a petulant whim? Or to test his family (in a: are we important enough for you to come see us way)? Maybe? Probably? But in this case I think PW and PC would do good to grin and bear it. For future of their relationship and PR wise. 
 

Bishop Curry might not be a personal friend (even though my definition of friend would exclude 90% of their so called friends) but as far as I am aware the only clergy person in the US both have some connection to. And iIrc he loved the stage that their wedding provided for him, so I can totally see him doing them a favour and then talking about it. It will be a private service, so I am not even sure it will be performed in a church or chapel. For all we know it might be in their backyard. Three days before PC and PW arrive.

Edited October 19, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Coconut Flan]

57 minutes ago, viii said:

They literally travel all over the world for holidays. They can easily go to the US for Lili's christening without it being a huge deal. 

They are, of course, able to do so if they wish.  At this point I see "scheduling conflicts"occurring.  I don't think very many in the BRF are going to go out of their way to accommodate Harry and Meghan at this point.  

[viii]

I don't think they are currently inclined to go, with everything that's going on between them. 

Removing the rift though, there is literally zero reason why they wouldn't be able to go to the US for an event like the christening. That's more what I was meaning. 

[EmCatlyn]

For what it’s worth, Bishop Curry did not marry Meghan and Harry.  The Archbishop of Canterbury did.  Michael Curry  spoke at the wedding, but the ceremony was performed by the Archbishop. (The same guy who had to clarify that he did not marry H & M privately three days before the public ceremony,)

Since money and celebrity “talk,” maybe Bishop Curry would be happy to go to California to christen Lili.  However, as an Episcopalian, I wouldn’t like it, and most Episcopalians I know would not either.  The feeling is that the presiding bishop’s time is too valuable to perform christenings for ordinary churchgoers.  (My husband and I would not dream of asking the regional bishop to christen our granddaughter even though we know him casually— better than H & M know Curry—and we are regular church goers.)

Anyway, I tend to agree that whether it is easy or hard for some of the royals to come to the US for Lili’s christening, it is very unlikely that they will.  Doing so would give more importance to the event than I think anyone other than Meghan and Harry would want to give it.

I think a quiet, private christening at Windsor would have been logical, especially if they observed the same degree of privacy/secrecy that they observed for Archie.  If the royal family has been unwilling to “work with” Harry and Meghan on a christening in the UK, then it’s most unlikely Charles (much less William) will fly half-way across the world to attend Lili’s christening. 

 

[just_ordinary]

@EmCatlyn That’s an interesting point you make about the feeling of Episcopalians thinking that the presiding bishops time is too valuable too christen an ordinary (so basically any) child that’s not part of his own congregation (or at all?). I find it hard to wrap my head around that, but my religious background is very different. I come from a mindset that every act like that, preaching to your congregation, christening, weddings, funerals…. so acts on the people, are THE most important part of his role. I don’t know what his weekly schedule is, but to me, skipping some administrative work or some low profile speech in order to perform a religious ceremony- especially if it means welcoming or bidding farewell to someone and trying to help/support the grieves. So a bishops time being too valuable for ordinary church goers sounds pretty diametral to the bible? I mean, I agree that H&M are, as far as we know, are most definitely not churchgoers at all. They might follow via online if he offers something like that though, who knows. But I highly doubt they do. So I would get outrage about making a special effort for cherry pickers while feeling the ordinary church goer is not valuable enough. That’s a criticism I absolutely get behind. 
I also agree the BRF won’t show up for a christening in the US. I just wanted to clarify this. I think they should but the chances are slim to non existent.

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

preaching to your congregation, christening, weddings, funerals…. so acts on the people, are THE most important part of his role.

Bishop Curry is the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopalian Church, which is essentially the current head of it. While I would agree that his congregation (which is currently essentially all Episcopalians) would like him to be available for sermons, weddings, christenings, funerals etc. (and he probably would like to do more of it himself) he is undoubtedly fairly busy with the internal workings and administration of the church (and politics, always politics) in the same way that the Archbishop of Canterbury is, the same way that Pope Francis is. It's a hierarchical church, the ceremonial and spiritual needs of the congregations are supposed to be predominantly attended to by their parish priests. His connection with H&M may well mean that he'd be thrilled to christen Lilibet, but of all their schedules I suspect his is one of the busiest.

[tabitha2]

Before my particular Church broke away from mainstream Episcopate to become Anglican I was confirmed by my local Bishop and He often comes  to do Regular Baptisms as well. Granted this could be my home church was the acting Cathedral of the diocese. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

@EmCatlyn That’s an interesting point you make about the feeling of Episcopalians thinking that the presiding bishops time is too valuable too christen an ordinary (so basically any) child that’s not part of his own congregation (or at all?). I find it hard to wrap my head around that, but my religious background is very different. I come from a mindset that every act like that, preaching to your congregation, christening, weddings, funerals…. so acts on the people, are THE most important part of his role. I don’t know what his weekly schedule is, but to me, skipping some administrative work or some low profile speech in order to perform a religious ceremony- especially if it means welcoming or bidding farewell to someone and trying to help/support the grieves. So a bishops time being too valuable for ordinary church goers sounds pretty diametral to the bible?  [snipped]

If you asked a bishop, he would agree that pastoral acts are the center of his role.  Realistically, however, a bishop does not have time to marry, bury and christen everyone who asks. Private ceremonies take up time that could be spent leading a religious service for a whole congregation, or advocating for a cause, or writing a sermon that will be heard by many.  (That’s aside from the many other duties of a bishop.)

In the Episcopal church that I know, baptism/christening is not usually a private ceremony.  Infants are baptized during a regular church service.  Sometimes two or more families will have their children baptized at the same time.  The congregation is wanted to be part of the ceremony because the christening marks the welcoming of the child into the Christian community, and the congregation represents that community.

In our diocese, the bishop visits a different congregation every Sunday, and the people ready for confirmation are presented and confirmed during one of those visits. He may baptize during one of these visits, but it’s always part of a service before the congregation (no private christening).

 Usually if a bishop is going to perform a wedding or funeral it is because he has a special pastoral connection with them or they are important in some way.  Otherwise people get married and buried by priests and canons (priests who work with the bishop and/or the cathedral).

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US is like the Archbishop of Canterbury.  He leads all the bishops in the country.  He has, as others have pointed out, a very busy schedule, and if he were to rearrange that schedule to fly to California for no other purpose than a private christening, then some Episcopalians (who indirectly pay his salary) might question what Meghan and Harry had done to deserve this special attention.  I certainly would.

(I would feel differently if I knew them to have a close friendship with Bishop Curry or if they were active in the Episcopal church or its causes.)

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

Before my particular Church broke away from mainstream Episcopate to become Anglican I was confirmed by my local Bishop and He often comes  to do Regular Baptisms as well. Granted this could be my home church was the acting Cathedral of the diocese. 

Confirmations are general done by bishops. That’s complicated, thouigh as most dioceses are large and bishops can’t get to every parish. Ours has usually been done by a retired bishop. But, yes, your bishop baptizing babies was because the Cathedral was his own parish. 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Royal commentator Neil Sean said: "What Harry allegedly told her was that she would be able to make a big change, modernise the royals, and move forward with all the things that matter to her, including her notable charity work.

"Once she found out that that wouldn't be the case and the fact that she couldn't have a social media platform, couldn't really speak out too much, the fact she'd given a few speeches that were tinged with things that the British Royal Family did not really approve of - then she felt it was time for her to Megxit.” Express-Oct. 20, 2021

This straight-out says  that Harry misled Meghan into believing she would have more of a voice and more freedom (power) than she did.  Of course, we have to consider the source,  and it could just be speculation.  I wonder though if there was a period during which she blamed Harry and demanded that he help her get out of the prison he had talked her into.

[just_ordinary]

4 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

This straight-out says  that Harry misled Meghan into believing she would have more of a voice and more freedom (power) than she did.  Of course, we have to consider the source,  and it could just be speculation.  I wonder though if there was a period during which she blamed Harry and demanded that he help her get out of the prison he had talked her into.

I think the possibility is actually quite high. I do believe however, that he didn’t mislead her on purpose. I am pretty sure he believed everything he told her. W&K, &H for a while have been on an interesting path. They started out close (for PR or for real who knows). They fought press intrusions and never made attempts to measure up to the senior royals work wise. They kept their private life hidden. There was more focus (and therefore more criticism) of W&K as they were married, had children and are in the line to the throne, but in general H was included a lot and not only joined them but often enough joined them on equal footing - especially him and Kate. Their status hasn’t really changed since, but it is pretty obvious that H and M were firmly put in “their place”. I don’t think it has anything to do with M though. W&K have started to endorse the more traditional side of their role stronger than before. I think it has been going on after Charlotte’s birth but became fully visible after Louis. So whatever ideas for a modern monarchy they maybe had together or everyone on their own in the beginning - it’s pretty obvious that W&K have set out onto a different path. In the end it’s Wiliam’s decision. If he wants to keep up certain protocols and traditions and not create a leading team of four but a distinctive separation between the crowned monarch and his family and the rest, that’s fine. But it seeks H was a bit oblivious about this or maybe didn’t listen. So he sold Meghan a very different future than what was actually on the table. And he/they have not the power to change that, they only had the option to drop out of the game. Which they did (half forced) and here we are. 
That’s why I totally understand that there are hurt feelings on his side and maybe he felt blindsided and betrayed. But he also is a grown up man that knows the system better than most- he should have made sure he was up to date with what’s going on.

Because I do think W&K have quite good arguments for what they do (at least I have them if my interpretation is correct). So their actions are very logically and promise quite the change of British monarchy while also protecting its core. I wonder if they never talked it through together or if his new relationship created a natural distance that led to a bigger distance that led to not talking much that led to all sorts of issues. 
Or maybe all those idealistic ideals were rooted in teenage/ya utopian dreams they had when they were young. Those almost always change when faced with reality. 

[LilaMae]

Meghan has written an open letter to Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer to advocate for paid maternity leave, which is definitely a worthwhile cause.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10113343/Meghan-writes-letter-mom-US-politicians-calling-paid-leave.html

 

Like many things with Meghan, I started the letter thinking "Oh, this is nice, if a bit wordy and pretentious", but then got to this bit:

"I grew up on the $4.99 salad bar at Sizzler - it may have cost less back then (to be honest, I can't remember) - but what I do remember was the feeling; I knew how hard my parents worked to afford this because even at five bucks, eating out was something special and I felt lucky. And as a Girl Scout, when my troop would go for dinner for a big celebration, it was back to that same salad bar or The Old Spaghetti Factory - because that's what those families could afford to do too.

 I started working (at the local frozen yogurt shop) at the age of 13. I waited tables, babysat, and piece-mealed jobs together to cover odds and ends. I worked all my life and saved when and where I could - but even that was a luxury - because usually it was about making ends meet and having enough to pay my rent and put gas in my car."

 

 

This is called a normal 80s-90s childhood, Meghan. Why do you feel the need to dilute the important message of paid maternity leave with this bullshit?

 

 

[just_ordinary]

@LilaMae

I agree. It’s a great cause and it’s great she supports it. I mean, you can wonder why she directs the letter to two politicians that are probably already on the same page and not to the government and/or Senat as a whole? But whatever. 
But I hate that constant need to talk about yourself and your experiences. Especially to the extent and with the constant victim narrative those two have adopted. I found her part of feeling overwhelmed and struggling as parents great. But her describing her reality from over 25 years ago as extra hard when it really is the normal reality for people at that time it and even today gets a bit strange. Which normal teenager doesn’t struggle to fill up the car? Most young people here have to work full or part time to cover rent (either in paid job training or university) and rent is EXPENSIVE and swallows up a massive percentage. How is that related to parental leave? And where comes the assumption from that her parents should have paid for her gas and rent because they could because they were on paid leave???? Were comes the idea from that going out for food is normal instead of a special treat? That’s so much first world, entitled brat problems I cannot even. I really don’t understand the argument.

She really diluted the message here. She better had just emphasised how women are forced to drop out of work and find it hard to get back with all the risks it involves (poverty, staying in low paid jobs, less job experience, only getting part time jobs because female, kids and less job experiences, not paying into your pension fund- pensioner poverty….). She could even try to sell it to the Republicans. Women deciding to become mothers later when they are established or not at all, mothers having less children, children being put in daycare from a couple of weeks on, the economic benefits of highly educated personal, the importance of fathers in the life of children…….
But as it’s not just about a general paid maternity leave but also actually parental leave (iirc) it would have been great if both described their feeling. That both needed time to adjust, that both want to spend this time with their baby and that both want to go back to work.

I think her arguments fall flat because, again they make it kind of about them and mix up this message with others. If they wouldn’t feel the need to say something about EVERY worthwhile cause that’s popular atm, maybe they would sound more credible. Why not showcase the paid parental leave solutions from all over the world on their website? Maybe highlight the ones where the country has seen an uprise in economic figures or that economic numbers are better than the US to proof it is not making you crash and burn. Give a voice to fathers that love being involved? To psychologist and sociologists that can explain how it benefits everyone. Hello podcast series…… hello Netflix documentary about parental leave (talking heads, how they organise things, going back to work- you know the whole wholesome family shebang). But they won’t put more effort into it. They won’t truly campaign for any cause. Because it means work, dedication and sticking with it when it’s not popular. And you cannot tie yourself to the next popular bandwagon for quick attention. The are only dedicated to their own brand. And that’s really sad, because, as I have said many times before, they could have great impact.

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by just_ordinary

[FluffySnowball]

On 10/19/2021 at 6:29 AM, EmCatlyn said:

It is very unlikely that Prince Charles and Prince William could just fly to the US for a christening.  They have plenty of other work, and there would be the question of who should bear the cost of their security, transportation, etc.  if they were traveling purely on family business.

I assume that’s the smallest problem. After all, we know that the royals also travel privately, e.g. to Africa, where William even allegedly proposed marriage to Catherine. The Cambridge’s apparently also spend some of their holidays traveling with the Middletons to some island (I have forgotten where to exactly, was it in the Caribbean?). So if they wanted, they could visit Harry and Meghan in the US. 

Also, i doubt they work all that much. Now, I’m not sure how many engagements Charles has, but W and C aren’t known for being overly hardworking so I’m sure they could fit a holiday into their schedule. 

[viii]

Everything about this letter had the potential to be great and highlight a SERIOUS issue in the US. Once again, Meghan missed the execution of it and brought majority of the attention on to herself. Not to mention, she attended private school from K-12. I don't know why she is insisting on this narrative where she had a severely disadvantaged childhood. 

I hate snooty nicknames for them like Hazbeen, etc but when people nickname her Megain... it's not entirely off the mark. 

[just_ordinary]

Not to forget the ballet and tap dance classes she did for a long time as pupil (and that her father allegedly drove her too only to go to a diner with her afterwards every time- there is a screenshot of her old Insta out online where she talk about that, but I cannot vouch for its authenticity so I say allegedly).