Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, has found herself in hot water after a Republican congressman from Missouri, Jason Smith, criticized her for leveraging her royal title to influence U.S. senators.
Smith expressed his disapproval, stating that if Markle wishes to be considered a royal, she must adhere to the responsibilities that come with it and not mix politics with her royal status.
The controversy arose as Markle reached out to Republican senators Susan Collins and Shelley Moore Capito to advocate for paid parental leave, a move that has sparked debate about the boundaries between royalty and politics.
In response to the backlash, Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York defended Markle’s actions, revealing that she had provided the duchess with the senators’ personal phone numbers to facilitate her lobbying efforts.
Gillibrand disclosed that Markle now aims to collaborate on policy proposals within a working group setting.
However, Congressman Smith raised concerns about Markle’s approach, emphasizing that her use of the royal title while engaging with U.S. senators could be perceived as inappropriate interference.
Smith highlighted the decision made by Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, to step back from their roles in the royal family in early 2020.
He suggested that Markle should refrain from invoking her royal status when communicating with lawmakers and instead identify herself simply as Meghan Markle, the former actress from “Suits.”
Smith underscored the longstanding tradition of neutrality in U.S. politics maintained by the royal family and questioned Markle’s alignment with this principle following her departure from royal duties.
Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams weighed in on the situation, acknowledging the importance of the cause Markle is advocating for while noting the potential implications of her political involvement.
Fitzwilliams pointed out the rift between the Sussexes and the royal family, emphasizing the challenges Markle may face due to past controversies, such as her interview with Oprah Winfrey.
He speculated on the impact of these factors as Markle navigates her newfound role in political advocacy.
The controversy deepened as details emerged about Markle’s upbringing and educational background, with discrepancies raised regarding her portrayal of financial struggles in her advocacy for paid parental leave.
While Markle emphasized her modest beginnings and working from a young age to make ends meet, reports revealed significant financial support provided to her for education expenses, including a substantial lottery win by her father.
Critics questioned the authenticity of Markle’s narrative and its alignment with her privileged upbringing.
Despite the criticism and scrutiny surrounding her actions, Markle remains committed to her advocacy for paid parental leave, citing her personal experiences and the challenges faced by families in similar situations.
Her efforts to engage with lawmakers and push for policy changes reflect her determination to effect meaningful change in areas she is passionate about.
As the debate continues over the intersection of royalty and politics, Markle’s foray into advocacy marks a significant shift in her public persona and aspirations for societal impact.
In response to the unexpected outreach from Markle, Senators Collins and Capito expressed surprise at the duchess’s direct involvement in lobbying efforts.
They acknowledged her use of the royal title during their interactions but emphasized the importance of focusing on constituents’ needs and feedback regarding policy decisions.
The senators’ reactions underscore the complexities and sensitivities surrounding Markle’s engagement in political discourse and the evolving dynamics of her role beyond the confines of traditional royal obligations.
Related Stories
