Duchess Meghan’s official royal page includes multiple references to feminism

The newly married Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, leaving Windsor Castle after their wedding to attend an evening reception at Frogmore House, hosted by the Prince of Wales

Meghan Markle – aka HRH the Duchess of Sussex – is a feminist. She didn’t need to hide that when she got engaged to Prince Harry, nor did she hide it during her wedding. We have high hopes that she won’t be hiding that in the years and decades to come as well. Meg walked herself down the aisle at her wedding, at least half-way, before Charles symbolically welcomed her into the royal family by walking with her the last half. Then Meghan did something no other royal bride did before: she made a speech at her own wedding reception. Even if Thomas Markle had come, Meghan was planning to make a speech anyway, so it was always planned. And what’s great is that it feels like Meghan’s political, social and personal feminism is being embraced by her new family too. The royal family launched the Duchess of Sussex’s new page on the royal.uk site, and it includes multiple references to Meghan’s years of feminist work. You can see the page here.

Newlywed Meghan Markle has begun her new life as a full-time royal with a powerful statement about social justice and women’s empowerment. The Los Angeles former actress, who gained the title Duchess of Sussex when she married Prince Harry in a ground-breaking ceremony on Saturday, was added to the monarchy’s official website over the weekend with a biography emphasizing her “lifelong commitment” to gender equality.

In an indication on how she intends to carry out her public role, the biography makes no mention of her Hollywood past but instead lists her work for U.N. Women and support for charities such as the Myna Mahila Foundation, which provide menstrual hygiene products and job opportunities for women in Indian slums. It quotes her remarks to the U.N. Women conference in New York in 2015 — before she met Harry — when she opened her speech with the words: “I am proud to be a woman and a feminist.”

[From NBC News]

The page actually does mention Meghan’s acting career, just not in the “About the Duchess” section – you have to click on “biography” and here’s what it says:

“After university Her Royal Highness worked as an actress, appearing in film and television. She most notably played the role of Rachel Zane on the series Suits for seven seasons, completing over 100 episodes. Whilst working on Suits, The Duchess moved to Toronto, Canada where the show was filmed; she feels very connected to Canada, as it became a second home to her. Alongside her successful career as an actress, Her Royal Highness also wrote and edited a lifestyle website called The Tig which she used as a platform to discuss social issues such as gender equality in addition to articles on travel, food and fashion.”

[From Royal.uk]

It must be nice to be the royal website blogger/writer these days – he or she is spoiled for information to use in Meghan’s biography of her pre-royal days. I’m glad the royals aren’t ignoring Meghan’s acting career, and I’m also happy that they’re embracing her history of charitable and feminist work pre-royalty. As I said, we have high hopes.

The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

39 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s official royal page includes multiple references to feminism”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lower-case deb says:

    i think it should be “no other British royal bride” did before, because i’m pretty sure Princess Sofia gave her own speech at her own wedding.

    • mint says:

      This! A lot of royal women did things before, eg wearing pants, that are claimed to be firsts by Meghan

    • lisa says:

      The ultimate feminist statement would be if she decided not to have children, because of the societal impacts of overpopulation. That, to me, would lend some legitimacy to her otherwise fairly shallow endeavors including her goop-lite lifestyle blog.

  2. Ankhel says:

    I’m glad she’s saying it. Perhaps that will help remove some of the stigma.

  3. minx says:

    I’m old enough to remember when being called a feminist was a desirable thing.

  4. sus says:

    I hear Meghan was the first person on the moon.

  5. Skylark says:

    Is it not a bit sad that a woman’s being praised for being a feminist? Perhaps I move in particularly enlightened circles (I doubt it!) but I honestly don’t think I know anyone – male or female – who’s not supportive of equal rights for women.

    Not to take anything away from Meghan but… come on? There’s a little too much and imo totally unnecessary over-egging the Meghan pudding going on here.

    • mint says:

      I think that has been their problem from the start – that they oversell her accomplishments and oftentimes make it look like more than it really is. I think thats part of the reason why the papers are so keen to find her skeletons and want to knock her down.

  6. SJF says:

    The wedding was gorgeous and glorious — and I’m no uber-royalist.

    I am so over any woman who denounces, denies or tries to couch feminism in their lives.

    The single most radical thing Meghan has done — and it was huge — was make it THEIR wedding, not HIS wedding. And it captivated the world while giving life-saving adrenaline to the BRF.

    I can’t wait to see what these two do together, for themselves, for Britain and for the world.

    • SheBug says:

      “was make it THEIR wedding, not HIS wedding. ”

      I didn’t get that at all. It was so sad that only one family member was there with her. And she wasn’t even a baptized Christian until they got engaged, the Gospel choir and bishop from Chicago seemed like a cynical ploy to help the Royals co-opt Blackness and seem more diverse.

      What’s been running through my mind for the whole engagement is that Harry’s the one who got caught dressed up as a Nazi. Like marrying a woman of color is the ultimate in rehabbing his image, and the Family’s. They clearly have chemistry and maybe it’ll work. But I can’t get over the feeling that they were on the lookout for someone like her for him.

      They only dated long-distance, and they were only engaged for six months. She didn’t even introduce her mom to the Family until the day before the wedding. He was famous for being a mess, and I can’t get over how she seems to have so many burned bridges in her life. No old friends and only one family member there. I get that I seem mean for saying this, but the whole thing is weird and just gives me a bad feeling.

      • erwin says:

        You’re not the only one. It’s more like a show than a wedding. It didn’t look genuine at all.

      • h.anna says:

        U are so right!

      • Natalie S says:

        @Erwin. Did you think the chemistry between Harry and Meghan was a show or was it some other detail?

      • Peeking in says:

        That’s not true, Meghan’s friend from college was there, she’s the one who tried to high-give the police officer, I believe. Also, one of her oldest friend’s daughter was in the wedding party.

      • h.anna says:

        but where were the family of her mother?

  7. SheBug says:

    She should be following the Royals’ lead a little bit more. QEII has been incredibly successful, and she’s been a modernizer in her own way over the years. She went to Winston Churchill’s funeral, for example, when a Royal going to anything like that for a non-family member was unheard of.

    What has worked well for the British royals is to emphasize self-control, duty and service. Meghan’s barely got a foot in the door and she’s trying to change things and emphasize leadership. She came across as really American, very wide-eyed and naive. Her facial expressions and demeanor were full theme park princess at some points. I wonder what the average Brit made of her. Her strategy might work, it’s bold certainly, but this sort of feels like a lot of things where Americans go into another culture like, “I’ll show THEM how it’s done!” It’s a big, old institution and those don’t change overnight.

    Even if the Royal Family is behind her 1000%, what about the assorted staff, handlers and some the reporters who’ve been covering the Royal beat for 30 years? She should be careful, she’s thousands of miles from home. She renounced her US citizenship. Her family’s not super supportive. If the Royal machine turns on her, what then?

    • CN says:

      Isn’t Britain her home now though? I think it is refreshing that she is a true outsider in many senses of the word and that she seems to have been accepted by the royal family. Everyone else should just follow their lead and accept her too.
      Change is not the worst thing in the world.

      She’ll find her way and even if she makes mistakes, that’s ok. There’ll be those that like her and those that don’t. Harry has made his choice and that’s it.

      Oh and about the “coming across as American”, she is American, what more do you want from her.

      • SheBug says:

        “Everyone else should just follow their lead and accept her too.”

        Almost no one does what they “should,” though.

        “Oh and about the “coming across as American”, she is American, what more do you want from her.”

        But she’s on their turf now? A lot of people resent Americans, our confidence, opportunities, the abundance of our society. And Americans tend to do this thing that she’s doing, emphasize that they like to break new ground and have firsts. A lot of people react to that with a “Who do you think YOU are? You’re not even one of us!” I think she would be wise to tread more carefully.

      • Ange says:

        While I agree with you, this: “our confidence, opportunities, the abundance of our society” is not generally why people resent Americans. I can assure you very few Brits and others would be looking to America as a land of opportunity these days.

    • CN says:

      SheBug, you’re saying what Meghan should do, then in the next breath, you say that //Almost no one does what they “should” though//

      I hope you’re seeing the irony in this.

      Let’s see how the next months go. I think she’ll be fine. I do not see a lack of self-control with her. She was already working for various causes so in that aspect she’s a good fit.

  8. vicsy says:

    Not trying to pit her against Duchess Kate, but I love how real and engaged her page sounds. Her journey from being an outspoken 11-year-old kid to a volunteer for menstrual hygiene WAY before she met Harry makes her sound like a well-rounded individual and an inspiring woman.

    It sounds as if she had her personal agenda from the get-go as opposed to being someone who takes on photogenic causes as the minimum work that goes with the BRF role like Kate. Reading Kate’s page, it sounds almost cold and not-attached in comparison. I don’t get a sense of who she is even after years with the title.

    I hope that MM will be a workhorse and stir some desire in the younger BRF to take on causes and do meaningful work to justify all the privilege and perks.

    • loislane says:

      Yes I also feel like I don’t know Kate. After all these years I just don’t know what drive her?
      And what does that mean? Is tithe whole neutral stand the royals should take or just that she just have no drive outside of her personal life?

      • Nic919 says:

        One of Camilla’s issues is working with victims of sexual assault. She has helped in the push to set up more services for victims. Sophie also works on a variety of issues as well. It’s really just Kate who does the bare minimum.

      • Violet says:

        @loislane – I think where Kate is concerned we have to remember the dreadful lessons the family took in from the Diana years: too much glamor, too much star quality, too much emoting – not good. It may be that as the wife of the next Heir, discretion was considered the better part of valor, and maybe the lesson was taken too much to heart with Kate. But I think between the example of the Diana years and the Duke of Windsor (who was also the Star of the Family in his youth, not like the quiet boring younger son) in the previous generation, Kate’s approach is what they wanted.

        The younger son always has a bit more freedom and I suppose that must go for his wife, as well. The monarchy “brand” didn’t do too well out of Diana’s stardom. I hope Harry and Meghan find more of a balance than Charles and Diana did. Meghan like Diana is really much more interesting than Harry (at least IMHO), and I hope they avoid the pitfalls that did in Charles and Diana so quickly.

  9. ladida says:

    While I think it’s great to emphasize feminism, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to call it new within the royal family, who has had three storied queens. Between Victoria, Elizabeth I & II, Thatcher and now May and of course Diana, it’s not like Meghan is suddenly going to usher in feminism in England. Feminism is not *just* something you say, it’s something you practice. Time will tell.

    • Violet says:

      @ladida – as Churchill said in his speech when George VI died and Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, “Famous are the reigns of our queens!”

    • Nic919 says:

      Queen Victoria was not a feminist at all. She was against women’s suffrage and her attitude about women was that they should be seen and not heard. The oppressive morality of the Victorian era was in large part because she believed women should get married and have babies and women who dared step outside of that ideal were to be shunned. As Queen she could have helped more women’s causes but she didn’t care for much beyond herself, especially after Albert died.

      Thatcher benefitted from feminism by virtue of being allowed to run for political office, but her policies hurt women more than anything, especially middle and lower class women. She would never have called herself a feminist either.

      And as for the current Queen, well she hasn’t proclaimed herself a feminist either, so really it does need to said outloud by Meghan because simply being a woman doesn’t make you a feminist.

      • SheBug says:

        I remember reading somewhere that Thatcher was most proud of being the first PM to have a science degree (Chemistry), not being the first woman.

      • ladida says:

        Even suffrage is anti-feminist by today’s standards. Read about Sanger’s reasoning for birth control. Not feminist at all. As for Meghan, I will wait for her actions, not words, to speak for feminism.

  10. Nell says:

    Meghan will change the monarchy forever just like Obama changed America forever. What were you expecting? Any good brand rides on the hype of the moment. Meghan is the woman of the moment just like those before her. Anyone who has studied branding will realize that the BRF is just trying to rebrand, not much will change just like Diana, Sohpie et al could not change anything. Sophie was said to be the best thing to happen to BRF, (nothing significant changed).

  11. Violet says:

    I just think it’s worth remembering that Meghan is not the first mixed race or black woman to enter European royalty. Alexandra Manley, of a Chinese mother and English father, married the second son of the Queen of Denmark in the 1990s; sadly, the marriage didn’t last but she was extremely popular with the Danes, became fluent in Danish very quickly, and she and Prince Joachim have two gorgeous sons, the eldest of whom I think is becoming a model. And, Princess Angela of Lichtenstein is a Panamanian who married the second son, Prince Maximilian, of that reigning family in 1999 (which is btw alleged to be the richest royal family in Europe). They have a son.

    This is a first perhaps for the BRF but I think it’s nice to acknowledge that it isn’t the first in Europe. Denmark and Lichtenstein are not, as we say, chopped liver – these are old, distinguished reigning houses, and Denmark’s I believe is the oldest in Europe.

    • Anatha A says:

      Yes. And Alexandra Manley became so popular and so involved that they created her Countess of Fredriksborg after the divorce and she is still considered part of the royal family with an appanage and royal engagements. She re-married and lost the royal highness title, but that didn’t make her any less involved or popular. It’s nice to see photos of her with the royal family. They all seem to get along.