Meghan Markle & Harry will join the senior royals at church on Commonwealth Day

Meghan Markle and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge attend the first annual Royal Foundation Forum held at Aviva in London

Monday is Britain’s Commonwealth Day, the day to celebrate all of the British Commonwealth countries. One year ago, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge skipped out on the royal family’s Commonwealth Day celebrations, which included a church visit and some kind of official palace reception. Where were they? Well, William was on a lads-only ski holiday where he got flirty with a blonde and drunkenly dad-danced. In the wake of that trip, the press went on another William-is-workshy-and-he-has-terrible-PR-instincts binge. Well, this year is going to be different. My guess is that it’s not like William learned any kind of lesson from last year’s debacle, and it’s more like William and Kate have never been more keen to be seen now that Meghan Markle is on the scene. So now Will, Kate, Harry and Meghan are all joining the senior royals for Commonwealth Day.

Meghan Markle is set for her biggest royal event yet, the palace announced on Friday. The American royal bride-to-be and her fiancé, Prince Harry, will join Queen Elizabeth and other senior members of the family for a special church service on March 12. Also expected at Westminster Abbey for the celebration of the Commonwealth: Meghan’s future father-in-law Prince Charles, and soon-to-be in-laws, Prince William and Kate Middleton.

The Queen, 91, is head of the Commonwealth, the global network of 53 countries with more than two billion people, and the annual Abbey service is the largest annual inter-faith gathering in the U.K. The service will include a special performance by One Direction’s Liam Payne and a reflection by Dr. Andrew Bastawrous, an eye surgeon who turned a smartphone into an examination tool which works to combat avoidable blindness in developing countries.

After the service Meghan, 36, Harry, 33, William, 35, and Kate, 36, will head into the square behind the Abbey to meet school children before attending a reception.

It is thought that Meghan, alongside Harry, will have a big role to play in a Commonwealth organization when she joins the family. She addressed that commitment at the Royal Foundation Forum earlier this week, and previously addressed her interest in learning more about the Commonwealth during her engagement interview. The fact that Meghan is joining in several official royal appearances underlines how quickly she is being acclimatized to the family and its public roles. In the weeks before she married William in 2011, Kate didn’t attend anything public with the Queen. She did, however, carry out some engagements around the country with William, such as heading to Scotland, Anglesey, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[From People]

Did you notice anything suspicious about that People Mag story? One, they didn’t cloyingly refer to her as “Princess Kate.” Two, they actually pointed out that Meghan is being fast-tracked and Kate barely did anything during her engagement. Three, they make it sound like William and Kate are the tagalongs on Harry and Meg’s event. “Harry and Meghan are doing this!!!!… and oh yeah, Will and Kate will be there.” I really do wonder if Ol’ Workshy Will is throwing some tantrums and stomping his feet behind-the-scenes.

Meghan Markle and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge attend the first annual Royal Foundation Forum held at Aviva in London

Meghan Markle and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge attend the first annual Royal Foundation Forum held at Aviva in London

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.

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

247 Responses to “Meghan Markle & Harry will join the senior royals at church on Commonwealth Day”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Inas says:

    You guys forget many articles last year of how Phillip will retire from duty and will and Harry will take more in 2018 Also an article of the queen doing or giving some of her activity to will and Harry in 2018. I think all this extra obligatory work because of Philip and the queen re distribute some of there public engagement in 2018.

  2. Liberty says:

    Everyone will tell me why I am mistaken, but I believe Charles or the Queen prefer Harry, see his value soaring with Meghan in regard to breathing new life into the whole monarchy thing, and will place their bets on the H&M energy juggernaut in deed if not on paper, while Willliam & Kate slip into second tier. H&M probably represent the best chance of not having the whole BRF thing dismantled in future, after a few years of Queen Camilla.

    Moreover, I feel Mrs M smells this new preference or learned something major from her media sources or Kate, and is frantically trying to shove her kiddos front and center to compete, because though they have the crown on paper, things can – yes, they can, even with difficulty- change. Though I think Kate is happy to have Meghan do the heavy lifting so she, Kate, can play rich WAG, William, while surlyband lazy, may be a touch annoyed that little brother and fiancée so easily picked up the toy he threw aside, and are polishing it up and running with it.

    • LAK says:

      Do you remember how much we speculated on the behind-the-scenes manoeuvres based upon Harry doing engagements and tours that should have been given to William?

      • Liberty says:

        Absolutely. And now I think what I see lately with Harry and Meghan, plus Charles naming David, the Earl of Snowden, as his second at hus Prince’s Foundation tells me that a quiet shake-up or shadow succession may be underway. I say “may” but I am intrigued.

        Stating that William and Harry are too busy with their Foundation to run the Prince’s Foundation has a plausible press sound. But belies the fact that William is rarely busy, and so this may be Charles’ nudge to Will that says Charles has a back up plan.

        William’s lazy and difficult, David is on the Foundation to see what he can do and he has great skills that would apply nicely, he is energetic and down to earth like Harry, not Will…… so now, Harry (and Meghan) with their own unique strong skill set and empathetic approach, have time for deeper heir training, hmm?

      • LAK says:

        I think that’s why Harry (and Meghan) are remaining with the royal foundation because it would fold faster than a house of cards without their efforts. Whether William or Harry are aware of this is debatable, but it’s so obvious from the outside.

      • Liberty says:

        I agree with you. And I think someone who matters is aware of it, and grateful that Harry managed to woo and win someone so smart, articulate, compassionate, hardworking and clearly able to step up and hit the ground running. Making “the problem with William and Kate” less of a problem.

        I sense that auditions are going on, so to speak, and William and Kate either haven’t twigged to this, or, in their heart of hearts, are relieved and don’t really care as long as they can hang onto their “stuff” and free time. But I think they may have a surprise in future years, depending on audition results. I think Meghan is quick enough to sense all this and to enjoy the work while helping her team toward victory.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I believe this and not because I think William is a stubborn, petulant man but because Diana said Harry would make a better king than William. It puzzled me before, but it doesn’t anymore.
        He’s closer to the family, and Charles has made some obvious moves that are curious. I wonder if they see William like David. They seem similar to me.

      • Kitty says:

        I told you guys. I am still going after my intuition that Harry is meant to be King and will be so in the future.

      • Liberty says:

        @magnoliarose, Diana’s comment is increasingly interesting, isn’t it?

        Harry’s appearance with his father on Valentine’s Day (last month) at that International Sustainability Unit meeting about coral reefs also seemed to indicate yet another opportunity for a father and heir to study and observe his son in a formal role. He strikes me as someone watching a prized student’s progression, for a reason.

      • Natalie S says:

        In response to Meghan, we’re getting more visibility from Kate and by now the bar is set so low that she just has to turn up often enough to not be considered work-shy. For many people, Kate doesn’t have to show depth in any of her causes, just the attempt. Which is all both Kate and Willam had to do anyway with other people doing the heavy lifting.

        Meghan, Harry and David may keep the ship running with Kate and William making enough appropriate appearances. Charles may be coming out ahead in all this.

    • Tulip Garden says:

      Preference doesn’t matter at all. Unless William abdicated his position in line, dies, or the monarchy collapses altogether, William will be King of England. If he dies, George will. That’s just the way it works. It isn’t a popularity, work related, or skills related contest. It is a hereditary monarchy.

      • LAK says:

        Tulip Garden, we know that, and Liberty mentions the unlikelihood *on paper* and or * even with difficulty* in her comment.

        And we weren’t discussing levels of popularity because that fades – see Andrew.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Tulip- things can change. Wills doesn’t really want the job. I think he could persuaded to step aside… I honestly think he only sticks it out for the money. And there’s pressure tactics that can be used to force the issue. Just ask the ghost of QEII’s Uncle David.

      • Liberty says:

        @ Tulip Garden….And, it is 2018….:-) with a prince Charles who has bucked tradition in his own way along the proper path.

        There are companies with faces in charge who are mere faces, while the real power and decision making happens quietly behind the scenes by quiet consent because the face may have inherited the company but is profoundly incapable of leadership. They have the title, houses, cars, and perks. This way it all looks smooth and nice outside. But, one takes meetings with someone else entirely, the on-paper head who knows his role, is satisfied with his shadow power and compensation and the work itself and doesn’t care about the frills. I suspect this BRF could be sliding toward this solution at bare minimum. It has nothing to do with popularity, but everything to do with the Firm’s survival.

        But again, I would rule nothing out. Times change. Or Camilla would not be in her role, Charles would not be selling organic foods, and Meghan would not be preparing for her wedding. Times change.

      • MissMarian says:

        Or the British Government changed the rules of succession. Not that I think it would happen, but it is possible to change rules and laws if there is enough desire to change them. If The Queen wanted badly enough for Harry to be the heir, it could be done. She IS a queen after all.

      • MRsBump says:

        This thread seriously feels like fan fiction. The monarchy needs stability, and predictability more than pretty much anything else. The Queen at 90 something won’t even abdicate to let her son on the throne because of the trauma caused the last time around by the abdication of her uncle.
        You guys seriously think that the Royal Family will bypass primo geniture because Harry & Meghan do more events than Will & Kate? Sure, its a nice fantasy but pretty unrealistic given that Will’s successor is his son. He may or may not want the job, but would he strip his children of the title?

      • Rapunzel says:

        Mrsbump- the queen and Charles will do what’s best for keeping the monarchy alive. I think it’s entirely possible that they might decide that requires skipping Will for the more popular Harry. Probable? No. But not fan fiction.

        Imo, it’s daddy Will has to worry most about. Will would be smart not to bite the hand that feeds him.

      • LAK says:

        MRsBump: I agree with your comment about stability, continuity, and even predictability and funnily enough, that’s the very excuse Parliament (and the barons during the bloody absolute monarchy eras) has used over the centuries to remove recalcitrant princelings.

        At every turn, going back to Matilda, stability and continuity has been the basic excuse given for the change. And regardless of circumstances, including heirs already born (see James 2), parliament did and can write the law to suit the situation.

        It’s important to remember that every time someone was removed, it was thought unthinkable, impossible and with potential for serious negative consequences. To counter this, parliament deploys *plausible PR to explain away the decision for the removal and ‘stability and continuity’ are always in there.

        *see how many people still think Wallis Simpson caused the Abdication.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ MissMarin, @ Liberty

        I love the picture you ladies are painting, but….,……there is still the small matter of Harry’s partners race.

        Because for any of this to be anywhere near plausible, we have to accept that we are assuming that Great Britain is even theoretically ready for a future King being a poc……

        Is that what we’re saying?

      • MRsBump says:

        I have no dog in this fight, i’ll be happy to buy you a drink if Will abdicates for Harry.
        Of course many things have a statistical probability of occurring, hey maybe both will & harry will turn down the job, and Eugenie or one of the corgis will be crowned.. but I’m choosing to go with the event that has higher probability. Other than the fact that we, on this site like Meghan more than Kate, there is zero reason for an event as massive as an abdication to occur, both would only be Queen Consorts anyway, what are you guys expecting her to do? Take over parliament and crown herself absolute Monarch, constitutional Monarchy be damned?

      • Lorelai says:

        @LAK: what now? I’m one of the peasants who apparently fell for the Wallis Simpson story — that’s not true? I need answers! :)

      • LAK says:

        MrsBump: A consort has no claim to the throne (ever!) so i’m not sure why anyone thinks either MM or Kate can get the Crown. Even if they turned out to be the best royals ever.

        We are speculating about William and Harry based upon historical precedent and discussing unprecedented occurances that appear to imply some major changes in the background.

        We are not saying it’s definitely going to happen or even likely to happen, but as history has shown, it is not impossible.

      • MRsBump says:

        @lak – it was a joke to underline the ridiculousness of the proposition. See also the bit where i mentioned crowning one of the corgis.
        But going by your assertion that anything can happen, who knows, maybe consorts could also reign.
        Honestly the likelihood of something like this happening is based on such flimsy arguments, i’m surprised the intelligent women of Celebitchy are seriously debating this proposition. As i said, i’ll happily eat my hat and buy you a drink if it happens.

      • Krill says:

        I dont want to offend anyone but this thread actually made me laugh out loud. Guys, William and his line is going nowhere. And I dont believe for half a second that anyone, from the Queen to Harry himself want him out. Incidentally, all of this seems based on perceptions that William is unpopular with the public? How, when his approval ratings have never slipped passed third in the BRF? By popularity stakes, Charles would go first.

        I know some think that the people are ready to sack the palaces because William doesnt make enough public appearances but honestly thats just the echo chamber effect. Very few people actually follow this family and yes I am including the Daily Mail rabid commenters. The public only log back on for the big ceremonious moments, the major heartfelt charity events (think Di at the AIDS hospice or Harry at Invictus) and the scandals. Stories that make it to the front pages and have the legs to stay there long enough for the story to sink into the public psyche. Thats why Charles is still largely known as the guy that cheated on his wife and married his mistress despite decades of ribbon cuttings and glad handing. Its also why people forget Anne and Edward but recall Andrew quite well.

        Movements in palace structure are probably just a reflection if Charles positioning himself better (and honestly that man always struck me as insecure so it wouldnt surprise me that he does things to elbow his heirs now and again). Certain “work” going to Harry is probably just that William isnt enthusiastic while Harry is. And William and Kates sudden involvement now is probably due to 1) Lizzie and Phil stepping back and 2) Their personal vanity demands that they try keep up with the force that is Meghan.

      • LAK says:

        Krill: No one is claiming popularity as a basis for speculations. We are all agreed that it’s not a popularity contest.

      • Jayna says:

        @Krill, spot on. The public even favor William over Charles in any poll you read. Harry isn’t even in the running as a close second to either of them. I find these comments odd that honestly think Harry is being positioned to take over, is favored. It’s ludicrous, really.

        And, yes, I do believe they had to step up this year because Prince Philip had retired and also because of Queen Elizabeth doing less, and also because of Meghan coming on strong, eager to get out there.

      • LAK says:

        Lorelai: Re: Wallis Simpson…..on a different note,when i first heard this story, it was do romantic. Barbara Cartland levels of romantic.

        Then i learned more about it and by the end i was absolutely horrified. What is the comeback to ‘ i gave up an empire for you?!’ The burden of it all. Do they make a hallmark card for that?

        Then the govt papers were opened to reveal the con job regarding the PR and i was doubly horrified.

        Not saying Wallis was a saint, though her jewels and fashion are to die for, but what a web to get entangled.

      • Ex-Mel says:

        This is not the time to rock the boat (and a change in the succession line would require HUGE “rocking”). The “boat” might very well go under.
        Even the entertainment value of the monarchy – the only value they’ve got left – isn’t what it used to be.

      • Princessk says:

        @Bellagio Du Pont……people are always going on about the ‘colour’ of H & M’s kids. The fact is that they will look completely white, the chances of them having very noticeable ‘African’ features is rather slim. Nobody would have guessed that Meghan was part African American because her features are largely Caucasian, she has Caucasian DNA from BOTH her mother and father and if she were to take a DNA test the African part of her I guess would be much less than 30%. William has some Indian blood in him but he is still going to be King.

      • Peeking in says:

        Tulip – I thought if William dies before he’s king, the spare, Harry is king, not George. I’m confused.

      • Bellagio DuPont says:

        @ Princess K

        The physical attributes of their offspring doesn’t really matter……they could be blue eyed with blond hair and they would still be treated as black because people KNOW they are quarter black. Therefore they will be thought of and treated as such.

        So, to even begin to discuss the possibility of Harry succeeding Charles, the underlying assumption must be that the UK is ready for a racially mixed King/Queen. (Don’t forget their descendants for the forceable future will also be thought of as poc)…..

        That is what my question is…… people think we are at genuinely at that stage?

      • Argonaut says:

        @PeekingIn no, harry stopped being the spare in that sense once george was born. the line of succession is charles, william, george, charlotte, THEN it’s harry. he’ll be bumped down again in a few weeks once kate gives birth.

      • Kitty says:

        @LAK, you really think that would work in the 21st century where the world is changing every moment? I mean its obvious that the monarchy probably will not last without The Queen.

    • bluhare says:

      I’m not going to tell you you’re mistaken. I agree with every word. I do think William will do what he can to.put a stop to it though, whether that be usurping them or flat out demanding things be given to him.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I never thought someone like 45 would be elected to the presidency. I don’t believe in status quo anymore. I definitely believe this will be done if the powers that be want it to be.
        There may also be some things behind the scenes that are happening that we are not aware of at all.
        Anything is possible.

      • bluhare says:

        Oh magnoliarose. So, so true. Although I confess that I am shame-anticipating the veterans day parade. I’m hoping Captain Bone Spurs/President For Life Trump wears a uniform.

      • Liberty says:

        Bluhare, I think with enough “things” and pomp when he wants it, William would be willing to glide. More than that, I think Charles has been studying the situation with his sons for some time now, and understands that the future of the monarchy in a very changed world calls for strategic moves. Again, this may be on paper,or a quiet shadow move.

      • irene says:

        ” I do think William will do what he can to.put a stop to it though, whether that be usurping them or flat out demanding things be given to him.”

        William is the rightful heir; he’s not going to be usurping anybody.

        Seriously, for a group of clearly well-educated people, you all sound like never-mind-the-fats conspiracy theorists.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with both, Liberty. William wants respect for being here, and Charles is a master at shadow moves, like letting slip Camilla will be queen consort in his announcement about restructuring his charity work!

      • bluhare says:

        irene, I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m having a wonderful time fantastically speculating!

      • LAK says:

        Irene: We’ve lived through times where it was constitutionally impossible for a Prince of Wales to divorce. The last POW to try to divorce his wife was repeatedly denied by parliament even when he graduated to King.

        And now not only do we have a divorced POW, but also one re-married to his mistress!!!

        30yrs ago, we’d all be were you are.

        Bluhare: i enjoy the speculation. Such fun to discuss of all the various times monarchy has changed within each dynasty and whether it could happen again.

      • mynameispearl says:

        but seriously, if the queen was able to decide that Harry would be a better option than wills, them surely we’d all wake up and realise the concept of heriditary monarchy was completely ridiculous in 2018….. boom end of monarchy, in with democracy. But…. never gonna happen. Total shame, such a drain on resources the whole family are. As a taxpayer from the North of Ireland I resent them completely. At least in Ireland we can vote our president out every 7 years, and don’t support every cousin and hanger on going.

      • LAK says:

        Mynameispearl: Only parliament can make the change happen, and we’ve had that exact scenerio with the Queen’s father in 1936. They realised that her Uncle the King (and when he was POW), was terrible and his brothers were better options.

        The eventual removal of the King was carried out by stealth whereby the King was persuaded to abdicate and the move sold to the public as a grand love affair that couldn’t be denied. This line was so thickly applied in subsequent PR that no one questioned the fact that the King had simply quit and been replaced by his brother or it’s implications for monarchy. The new King was subsequently sold as a stabilising, stable force for good with his family radiating wholesome family values.

        When the govt papers on this episode were released recently, it didn’t trigger any questions about monarchy because media reporting on them emphasised the poor character of the removed King and the lucky escape for Britain that we ended up with her father and eventually the current Queen.

        Given the success of this and previous successful PR campaigns to sell the removal of the monarch eg the Glorious Revolution, i’m sure that if William was replaced, an equally successful and plausible PR campaign would be employed.

        I realise that this is 2018 and we all think we are immune to such PR tactics, but the last forced abdication and subsequent PR tactics happened over 300yrs ago (that Glorious revolution) and no one thought it could happen again or that the public would accept the change so easily in the information age, and yet it happened.

        Given the continued success of PR tactics presenting William and Kate as hardworking, humble people-with -no staff in the social media age where these lies are harder to disseminate, it’s not hard to imagine that a campaign to sell his replacement as a good thing would be equally successful.

      • Kitty says:

        @LAK, you really think that would work in the 21st century where the world is changing every moment? I mean its obvious that the monarchy probably will not last without The Queen.

      • magnoliarose says:

        The problem with thinking things are impossible is that it has been proven time and time again that it is not the case.

        It doesn’t take intelligence to realize that systems run the way they do because the power behind them want them that way. With Brexit looming the role of the BRF might change, and they may be needed as real ambassadors to attract business and trade to keep the economy strong. There will be more incentives for countries to deal with the EU and not the UK alone.
        Charles’ popularity globally is different than royal watchers want to believe. The world doesn’t care about his marital situation. If he proves useful beyond photo ops, he will be popular.
        It is not by accident Meghan was accepted, and there is a lot more to it than Harry’s feelings.

        I am at heart a Republican, not US GOP because as the BRF is today, they aren’t useful enough to warrant the lifestyle. I think it should be scaled back anyway. I believe in a merit-based system. So though I like Harry and Meghan better, they don’t change my values and beliefs. But they are going to have to evolve into something else, and there is no way they are going to allow it to end for the sake of traditional accepted rules of succession. History proves this.

    • Jayna says:

      The Queen will never want the heir to the throne, Prince William, to slip to second tier. She would never allow it. I think you are mistaken. She wouldn’t want that even if Harry is her favorite, which I have no idea if that’s true or not. And she nor Prince Charles will let that happen to Prince William.

      • LAK says:

        She (they) are already doing it unconsciously. They let Harry represent them at events that should be given to William to do eg representing the Queen at the Olympics 2012 and reading out her speech.

        They counter the slippage by giving William the baubles and perks commensurate to his rank, but William refusing to meet them halfway except when forced, might find himself out of the job because the decision might be made for him by parliament.

      • minx says:

        Exactly. She is the most traditional of monarchs.
        And I don’t know how any outsider can discern who is her favorite.

      • Kitty says:

        Jayna, I think the Queen most importantly wants the future of the monarchy to be secure not fragile and on a decline which will happen after she passes.

      • bluhare says:

        I side with Kitty here. The Queen is traditional and I think you’re right, but I also think she’s pragmatic.

        And I also think it will go away after Charles.

      • Merritt says:

        The idea that Harry is her favorite or that she has a favorite is pure speculation. The Queen and Prince William did an engagement together last year welcoming German diplomats and she was beaming at William with pride. William is going on tour in the Middle East in the summer. The idea that he is being pushed aside is just fantasy.

      • Liberty says:

        It is precisely because I think the Queen is vowed to protect the monarchy and its future, and not just the interests of her grandson William, that I think change is not impossible.

        I do not suggest any such choice might be easy. But if she is as pragmatic as I think she is, and if Charles is as aware of his sons’ abilities as I think he now is, I think there is potential for surprising movement, even if they must wrestle with such an enormous decision.

        Everyone crying fan fiction here needs to know this: I may write little romps, but it is my business head speaking here. If I ran this BRF corporation, I know what scenario I would be studying.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They wouldn’t have the final say. It would be the people behind the scenes who have an interest in keeping the BRF alive and running. If they decide William would be a disaster, then they will remove him. We have no idea what he is like behind the scenes except for some of the bad qualities that he is spoiled, difficult, imperious and mercurial. He has good qualities for sure, but much of him is unknown. At least to most of us except for the objective royal watchers in the UK perhaps.
        I keep going back to this, but Kate does not have the family orders. Seven years in and still not. The Queen decides that.
        The interactions publicly have been chilly with Charles. No big photo ops with Charles and his grandson. That is not a mistake. It is odd.
        I don’t think William even wants it. I think he wants rank, luxury, and lifestyle but not duty.
        I don’t know what is going on either way. I just know nothing is impossible.

      • Jayna says:

        @Liberty, you act like Harry wants to be King. He doesn’t any more than William. He has had a freedom William never had in some ways. Harry would be a more engaging king. I agree, he has the better personality. I don’t think he wants it in the least. Harry takes a lot of trips also, puts his foot in his mouth, etc. Harry doesn’t do well when criticized. The criticism becomes even greater when heir to the throne. And he wouldn’t do that to his brother, who I don’t believe would ever willingly give up the throne.

        It’s kind of a catch-22. William may resent being heir to the throne, but I doubt he wants to give it up to Harry either. It’s now part of his identity and his son Prince George’s destiny also.

      • Liberty says:

        @Jayna, I truly don’t think either “wants” it.

        But I do think William’s resentment has translated to inaction, no-shows, and surliness, and effort that cannot hide some sort of lack of effort or lack of interest in propelling possible successes.

        I think Harry decided to accept the yoke and go plow the field, and make the best of it, then he began to see what he can accomplish and transform (and I am of course waiting for someone to yip that the Invictus Games don’t count), and he liked it and his more empathetic and service-prone nature, trained in the military, took over and is carrying successfully forward. Now with Meghan, I sense he is finding the broader potential of reaching out and working in his role, on a strong team with back-up (versus his snarky brother and disengaged sister-in-law) and he likes it, or finds it more bearable and sees potential he can understand.

        If those are your two applicants, you might begin to step in and encourage the first balky applicant to think of other roles he is more suited for.

        As a friend in London who’s crossed Charles’ path often says, never forget that this Queen breeds horses, and knows a racer when she sees one.

        Only time will tell.

      • LAK says:

        Magnoliarose: I’d never thought about the strangeness of the paucity of Charles +William + George pictures.

        Not for the implication regarding their personal, familial relationship, but for official capacity reasons. The BRF is big on public gestures and deploy these photo ops as part of the public image. That’s why everyone scrutinises / analyses the photos in the Queen’s christmas broadcast or any photograph of her private / public spaces when she receives VIPs.

        Charles had a picture of G in the background of a PSA shortly after media speculation that he rarely saw the kid. Beyond photos from Trooping The Colour, nada. Plus i do not think he has ever mentioned any of William’s endeavours (ha!) Which i put down to their lack of a general relationship as opposed to the implications for the BRF public image.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I have been watching this since his birth. Charles is a visual message sender like his ex. At an official event, he held up Camilla’s grandchild instead of his own. Odd.

        I don’t believe they make any decisions based on sentiment or emotion but with a business mind.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        You guys, I’ve enjoyed this entire conversation so much. It’s all so interesting, isn’t it? I think one thing that might not have done William any favors is his relationship with the Middletons. I’m absolutely sure neither Charles nor the Queen like it. On a personal level, they might be happy for him but the monarchy isn’t a sentimental issue to them, it’s The Firm. And the Middleton have far too much influence on William and therefore on George. William’s spoiled bs definitely has a lot to do with them and the pretending re “normalcy”.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Liberty I don’t think you’re mistaken at all, ITA.

      What I’m interested in seeing is how much comes to pass and how much remains “on paper” — if that makes any sense.

      (ETA: I have no idea why this comment appeared so far below your original post.)

      Also: Liberty, LAK, Bluhare (basically anyone more knowledgeable than me!) — what are some of the things Charles has been quietly doing behind the scenes to fuel this speculation? E.g., what are some engagements given to Harry that you think should have been done by William? I get all of my royal-related info here, from all of you, so I’m honestly asking. I find it all fascinating, even if nothing comes of it.

      @MagnoliaRose: Same. I learned in November of 2016 to never say never. I would have sworn up and down that Donald Trump would never be president of the United States, and now look where we are. I now believe that *anything* is possible. You’re correct that the status quo has been decimated.

      • Liberty says:

        @Lorelai — I find the subtle steps the most interesting, like the appearance of Harry at Charles’ International Sustainability Unit’s meeting on Valentine’s Day. The quiet ways a CEO begins to study and groom a candidate. This is just my speculation, though, through my lens and a couple of contacts. It’s LAK and bluhare who have the knowledge and the most fascinating insights.

        I also share the feeling we are in a time of anything can happen. Maybe that’s why I am looking twice at everything and wondering.

      • Lady D says:

        I get my royal-related info here too, Lorelai. I’ve learned so much about the Royal family, their relations, customs, rules and jewels. It’s great!
        It’s the same for me with US politicians info. BD (before donald) I could name the top 3-4 politicians in the country, and maybe a few more. Post donald, I can name about 25 or more US politicians and their titles, not to mention their personalities.
        Some things are fun to learn, some aren’t.

    • starryfish says:

      It’s an open secret that Harry is a lot closer to both Charles & the Queen than William is. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they are aware of the fact that Harry is clearly more suited to a life of charitable work than his brother. This new role with the commonwealth is definitely something that should go to the heir, but you can’t make someone care about a job that they don’t want to be doing.

    • Carolind says:

      To do with the succession, things cannot change. Apart from varous battles early on, the whole Cromwell thing and overthrowing James Ii (VIIth of Scotland) because he was RC, there has only been one abdication in over 1000 years.

      The only change there will be is if Britain rejects the monarchy or if William and all his children die. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t get it.

      I am no great fan of William or Harry but it is William and Kate who are sitting pretty although that is not to say they won’t be rattled if Harry and Meghan are obviously much more popular or make a huge success of a big commonwealth role.

  3. MRsBump says:

    Euhh, i dont see how this is “Meghan and Harry’s event” and will & kate are tagging along. This is the Queen’s event and it is everyone else who is tagging along.
    I love Meghan, i think she’s a breath of fresh air but the excessive pro-Meghan bias is wearing me down.
    The royal family is an institution that spans hundreds of years, the idea that she’s suddenly going to revolutionize everything simply by not being white and doing more events is ridiculous.
    She’ll do some charity appearances, have a couple of kids, and lead the life of an excessively rich woman, no more, no less.
    I refuse to call showing up to charity related events as “work”, and that goes for all members of the family. Its quite unclear what good these appearances do, other than temporarily raise some awareness. No figures are ever published about the actual economic impact of their visits.
    Frankly i couldn’t care less about the number of visits done by Family Member X vs Family Member Y, it’s nothing but fluff to justify their lives at the tax payer’s expense. We play into this nonsense by praising so and so’s work ethics, which is but a fraction of what all of us do everyday to survive.
    Royals are nothing more than a distraction, honestly the least they can do is wear pretty clothes. In that regards, i hope Meghan feels comfortable enough soon to stop playing it so safe. She’s dressing in pricey versions of the stuff most of us wear to the office, and i so wish to see her as a style icon à la Letizia or Rania.

    • bluhare says:

      I think that pro Meghan bias you’re seeing is those of us who pay attention to these things being really happy that this woman marrying into the royal family is exactly what we hoped kate would be, and isn’t just giving lip service.

      That being said I would like to see them do more civic events. They do events with their patronage or media campaigns but they don’t get out into grassroots Britain. I hope Meghan can see the fallacy of that. Flashy campaigns are great but if you want to ensure the success of your firm you look at what the customer wants and I’m not sure that is it. Going out to smaller towns and opening a library, town hall, etc gets you local goodwill. Get enough local goodwill and the country is behind you.

      • magnoliarose says:

        They won’t listen.
        I don’t know why it bothers Kate fans if Meghan has her own supporters who relate to her better. Maybe on this site, we came together.
        Ever since she has come on the scene, Kate’s fans have behaved as if every compliment about Meghan is one less for Kate. ???
        It makes no sense. I like Meghan better. She is more relatable to me.
        Nothing deeper than that.

      • MRsBump says:

        Bluhare – i think you missed the point of my comment, which is basically the utter uselessness of the royals, regardless of the number of events they attend.
        If it wasn’t, then going by the bucket load of charity events that Princess Anne does, you’d think that poverty in the UK would have been eradicated by now.
        Frankly if they start opening up local libraries in the hope of racking up “grassroot support” in order to maintain their ridiculously privileged lives, i’d lose even more respect for them.
        We like Meghan better because she’s more relatable to us than Kate, that’s it. Regarding what you said about her finally being the sort of woman you were hoping Kate would be, i really hope that was a hyperbole because they are just two women who have had the extraordinary luck to marry princes, i’d not sitting here, holding my breath waiting for them to change the world one charity event at a time.

      • Lauri says:

        I completely agree with you bluhare! In fact I think we’ve taken part in this same discussion on MAM/HRHDK’s blogs. While I think highlighting mental health is very important and long overdue, that doesn’t mean that the younger royals can’t open the occasional factory or local business and I don’t believe one needs to take on a new patronage in order to visit a local farm or fair (which is the argument I’ve heard against the younger royals doing these types of engagements).

        @magnoiiarose, I know right!!! I find it rather sad that several pro-Kate sites that don’t allow any discussion of her work ethic or anything really that might reflect poorly on her, have no problem bashing Meghan up one side and down the other while pulling on their forelocks and crying for every criticism of Kate’s wardrobe (because that’s all they can discuss). It’s interesting that these fans like to think that they’re better than others because they only praise Kate while they definitely show their hypocrisy whenever they criticize Meghan. Ah, human nature at it’s finest.

      • LAK says:

        MrsBump: i hate to break it to you, but the charity events they do, including the boatload by Anne, are to maintain support of the monarchy. It’s entirely self-serving, and was instituted by George V and Queen Mary to make the royals relevant and appear useful so that the public doesn’t remove them. All of them with the exception of William and Harry (going by actions or statements) are aware that they are dependant on public opinion and goodwill.

        It is the reason there counter-republic argument always defaults to tourism which is complete BS if you look at the monthly and annual polls / money receipts conducted by various local/ national UK tourism boards.

      • bluhare says:

        I’ve missed a lot of points in my career, MrsBump. Some fly right over my head and some get trampled underfoot. I actually agree with you that royals are unnecessary in this day and age. However, since they are there, then I would hope that they can be useful, rather than useless, which is where my comment about being more civic minded came in. So if you’d lose respect for them if they did that, well that’s fine. I wouldn’t. I would gain it because it would show to me that they have a regard for the people who pay for a lot of their keep.

        And yes, it was hyperbole to an extent because I’d like to think that most people who had the opportunity to effect some change would do it. Kate hasn’t and I don’t think she wants to. Which is also fine; just don’t keep telling me she does! Meghan obviously wants to get stuck in at something and I commend her for that. Whether she can bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st century remains to be seen.

        Lauri – yes! I can imagine how boring it is, but I also think you’ve got to learn basic math before you get to take the calculus class if that makes sense. Otherwise you could end up with a lot of fanfare and not much interest. Also, if there’s going to be follow up, I might suggest immediately, rather than 6 months to a year later. In this day and age of a 24 hour news cycle nothing stays on the radar screen long.

      • MRsBump says:

        @lak – i’m well aware of the self serving reasons behind their events. That was pretty much the entire reasoning behind my comment in the first place.
        Which brings it back to my initial argument: since the whole thing is self serving and of no use to the general public, why do we keep caring about the number of events done by X vs Y?
        we can all agree that the monarchy is pointless, and that the main reason for these charity appearances is to generate goodwill to keep them in their thrones, why not let them be lazy, have their “eat cake” moment, so this outdated institution can finally die off.

      • Lorelai says:

        @MagnoliaRose I agree with you but I think it’s because there are so many people who immediately compare Kate and Meghan. You and I just happen to like Meghan better, and don’t feel the need to bash Kate at all turns, but a lot of people do. So I think Kate fans are EXTRA defensive.

        Personally, I also like to believe that they know that Meghan will always fare better in these comparisons, even though they would never, ever admit it, so they get super defensive. And it takes the form of lashing out at Meghan because they don’t have much to work with if they want to make a case to defend Kate. The only arguments I’ve seen from them are along the lines of “Kate has nothing to be worried about, she’s married to the future king” — but nothing about her own merit. I realize this is petty but choose to believe it anyway :)

        Your point about the fact that she still hasn’t received a royal order seven years in backs this up.

      • Liberty says:

        @bluhare and magnoliarose — Do you suppose some of these local events are being retained as Camilla territory while they campaign to have her win hearts prior to Charles taking the throne? I feel I’ve seen her do more visits of this nature, but I could be wrong — like the Halifax Borough Market visit last month?

        Meanwhile, it seems pretty apparent Harry and Meghan could handle this kid of thing with ease, so the main interest was polishing them up at bigger formal visits for now? And having Will and Kate step up too, to take the place of Philip and help out Charles?

        @magnoliarose – I agree. Some of us just gravitate more to Meghan’s warmth and work ethic. A point for her is not a point deducted from Kate. In fact, I have given Kate points for getting out there a bit more and looking and sounding more relaxed and authentic. I was pro Kate until she showed no effort. If she steps up at last in a real way, fantastic for all. I am not fully expecting it at this point, but, who knows. She has a new guide. And she has a fresh example in Meghan.

      • LAK says:

        MrsBump: No of events = financial justification for keeping them. If they are not doing anything, why are we giving them our taxes?They employ daily PR that gaslights the public into never questioning their usefulness.

        At the grassroots level, those bread and butter engagements are the royal equivalent of a campaigning politician meeting their constituents and kissing babies. It’s that effective.

        It continues because for various reasons we do not have a viable alternative system of govt. We have a democratic govt that includes a separation of ceremonial and executive. The nearest parallel we could emulate might be Ireland, where the head of state carries out ceremonial duties and is appointed for limited terms and we don’t subsidise their entire family.

        …but considering the gaslighting, it is going to be many decades before we have that conversation or it might come when Elizabeth is no longer with us.

      • Liberty says:

        One thing I can add is an observation from a friend last year: among the women she knows from her daughter’s high end school in London, women whose time is devoted fully or in part to charity, they are quite clear about preferring to devote time and financial support to those charities supported by people in their own circles, and patronized by certain members of the royal family.

        Reasons included imagined proximity , and “so it must be worthy” validation.

        I don’t know if that can be bottom-line tallied, but it’s interesting as a cause-effect of charitable giving.

        (My friend is a researcher and devours info like this, though she finds their attitude amusing as she is not much of a Royalist, apart from being a minor fan of the Queen.)

      • Addie says:

        You’re exactly right about getting out into the regional areas but both Harry and William (and by extension, Kate) have long indicated through words and (in)action that they don’t want to do this type of activity aka ribbon cutting. Instead, they want to turn up sporadically to events under the Royal Foundation brand label whenever they need to keep their PR flag flying. The charities under the RF brand do not necessarily receive money from the RF – witness the Heads Together group of charities where not all received funds. But they do the day-in, day-out work and the RF gives a cloak of credibility to HM+WK’s ‘work’. There is no ‘work’, just occasional bursts of self-serving PR. This is their idea of ‘modernising the monarchy’ = cutting down on number of charities and therefore number of engagements, limiting travel in the UK (but not to attractive destinations in the Commonwealth), all in service to them living more private lives… but on the back of taxpayers. In short: give us your dough, no questions asked and leave us in peace to do what we want ‘cos we’re special.

      • magnoliarose says:


        I think partially they are saving activities for Camilla, but they need the younger royals for attention and glamor. They need stars to appeal internationally for image building.

        They need to earn their perks. There are many ways to do it. In this day and age bland photo ops aren’t going to cut it.

    • Jayna says:

      I agree. Calling it a Meghan and Harry event, with William and Kate tagging along, is a bit of hyperbole. LOL

    • Natalie S says:

      @Mrs.Bump. Is what you’re saying that the concept of monarchy is in itself so dumb and a waste of money that praising members of the institution for any of their actions or trying to find a metric to measure them by is futile and a waste of time?

      I see this group of people presenting themselves to the public in a certain way and I gauge whether their self assessment is accurate (calling themselves role-models) and whether the stories written about them is accurate. I pay attention to the amount of influence they have and assess whether they’re at all handling it responsibly. and try to figure out the degree of self-interest vs. the messaging. And it’s interesting how people respond to that messaging and how protective they get of the various Windsors.

      Ultimately they’re all grifters to some degree or other and I find those discrepancies between messaging, including about their work-ethic, and action, along with moments of actual sincerity really interesting to point out and talk about. Especially considering how much access and influence they have.

      • MRsBump says:

        @nathalie S – indeed, the whole thing is an exercise in pointlessness.
        Any influence they have is minimal, no matter how much they (or ourselves) try to convince us otherwise. Charity events here and there do not lasting change make, for this laws are required, in which they are not allowed to partake nor influence.
        However eager/earnest they may be in their charitable endeavors, the underlying factor is that this is the minimal effort they are required to put in to justify the stupendous wealth they live in.
        In reality, the charities they offer their patronage to would carry on working just the same with or without their sporadic visits, so in effect their impact is minimal, so all these arguments we have about who is working more or less is just as pointless.
        It’s not real “work”, it’s nothing more than putting on a sympathetic look on their faces, shake a few hands, say a few sympathetic words before retreating back to their palace to enjoy the fruits of the english payer’s taxes.
        As long as the royals exists, we should treat them for what they are, mere figureheads for entertaining purposes. Trying to elevate them to role model status is a mistake in my opinion. Change comes from laws, and from the us, the people.

      • Everything in life an exercise in pointlessness if you really think about it. Lol

      • Natalie S says:

        @MRsBump. Money is power. The financial affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William are legally kept from scrutiny. The Queen has influenced legislation and she has protected Andrew from the justice system.

        The BRF isn’t stupid enough to show that power too publicly but they have enormous influence and power. And on top of that, the public pays for the costs of their pr.

      • MRsBump says:

        @nathalie S – do you have examples of areas where she influenced legislation? I’m happy to stand corrected. Protecting her son doesn’t really count as law making in my opinion.
        There are several of Charles’ letters which have been made public where he attempted to influence politicians, none of those came to fruition (even when his ideas were good) and were met with derision and criticism.
        So yes, the impact they have on the political sphere is scarcely more than any wealthy aristocrat.

      • Natalie S says:

        “the impact they have on the political sphere is scarcely more than any wealthy aristocrat.” Except the Queen is literally a symbol of the country and protecting her reputation is considered part of protecting the UK. There’s also the extra secrecy around her financial dealings and also those of Charles and William.

      • MRsBump says:

        The article also states that the crown votes in accordance to the guidance of the ministers.

      • Natalie S says:

        Their spokespeople said so. Literally employees of the Queen and Prince Charles. The line right below that shows that this is not believed.

        ” unless advised to do so by ministers.” What does that mean? Why are ministers advising them to vote against legislation brought by other citizens? Why are unelected people or people not chosen by elected people even able to affect legislation in any way?

      • LAK says:

        MrsBump: the CEO of the Duchy of Lancaster has a permanent seat in cabinet. The duchy of Lancaster is the duchy that provides wealth for the monarch. Why would someone who is essentially a wealth manager hold a permanent seat in cabinet? Why not all the other wealth managers in the land?

        Btw, that CEO reports personally, but privately to Queen and latterly Charles and William. None of this is very publicly known though there are hints if you look at their website.

        Whilst the current Queen does everything her ministers advise her to do, she still holds the final signature that can halt or slow down govt business. Charles has increasingly been allowed to hold similar sway.

        An example of his slowing down business even though in this case it was entirely self-self-serving and not so consequential in being slowed down…..the bill to change gender rules for the crown. It was sent to him to sign in one form, and he sent it back unsigned until his changes had been inserted. Specifically addressing the religion question which it had ignored. The lords had to amend the bill to remove the catholic issue, but also emphasise that the monarch had to be CoE regardless of the faith of the parents.

        You might think that is a non issue in terms of demonstrating his power, but he is only POW st this point. The Queen’s way of ruling was to do nothing and simply sign whatever is put infront of her without questioning it. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t have more, only that she chooses not to exercise it. Charles will be very different. He exercises the power he holds as POW, and he will exercise the power he will hold as monarch.

      • Natalie S says:

        Thank you @LAK for the details.

    • Jumpingthesnark says:

      Re: Megan and clothes, I don’t agree. “Style icon” very quickly becomes “spending too much British tax payers money”. After the couture gown engagement pics she is smart to stick with high end working women type clothes. She’ll have her chances with gowns etc at future charity events, state dinners etc

  4. Jenni says:

    Mrs bump, you took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better. If you place the ‘work’ that royals do side by side with the ernomous luxury lifestyle they live, you will notice that the huge amount that they consume is far higher than the so called ‘work’ that they do. What actual impact do these numerous charities they engage in have on the people?

    • irene says:

      How about the above, for example, or the testimonies of those who have been helped by the Princes Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards, Invictus, Sentebale, conservation etc. Are all of them lying?

    • minx says:

      Liquidate the vast wealth and holdings of the monarchy and give it to charity. Much more efficient than the upkeep of these pampered poodles and their so-called “work.”

      • I love how everyone seems to forget the fact that the crowne estate which funds the monarchy and the treasury doesn’t belong to the government like some republicans would have you believe.
        It’s likely that if the monarchy is dissolved that BRF will still continue to get as much money as they do now if not more.
        Then they can just be another set of rich tax dodging Aristos.
        Also in ireland when they became a republic the crowne estate was “given back” to the govt however in 2016 it was discovered that the govt continues to pay “rent” to the crown.

      • LAK says:

        Formerly known as Amy: the crown estates like the duchies do not belong to the royals. Never have. The crown estate was created by an act of parliament in Norman times to fund the instrument of government. Govt in those times was defined as judiciary, parliament, army and expenses of the royal household. It was separate from the monarch’s personal estate and monies. The monarch was charged with managing the estate in the same way that Charles manages the duchy of cornwall. The personal estate of the royals continued and continues to be separate from the crown estates.

        George 3 for various reasons didn’t want to manage the estate anymore and handed the task to parliament who continue to run it. In exchange he stipulated that the expenses of the royal household continued to be paid since he remained the head of state. Those expenses were / are the basis of what became known as the civil list and latterly Sovereign grant.

        If or when we get rid of the monarchy, or chose a different way to pay for the ceremonial head of state, the % of the crown estates that currently goes to the Queen and the royal household will automatically revert to the treasury just as the crown estate was relinquished to the govt in Ireland.

        It’s inexplicable why the public believe these estates ever belonged to the family who magnanimously gave it upto the govt except for a small annuity.

        It’s a very sly piece of PR which is increasingly being encouraged. It will make it easier for the family to demand a large compensation/ pension should we get rid of them unless we get politicians who stand their ground on this point.

      • In Norman times the state and all the land belonged to the king by default.No part of the crown estate can revert to the treasure because it never belonged to the treasury. It belonged to whoever was wearing that crown.
        It could revert to monarch but then they would have the responsibility of funding the govt like he did in Norman times.
        The crown estate was “relinquished” in Irish govt but guess what they still low key pay rent to the crown estate .
        The monarch has to sign away the crown estate when he ascends the throne even now.
        It’s owned by neither the Windsors nor the govt but legally since they’ve both been drawing benefits from it, it’s going to be difficult to adjudicate because the decision would affect the issue of land rights and how land has been owned in the UK.
        Unless your getting rid of all the Windsors, landowners and house of lords, i just dont see how legally the govt can claim the crown estates.
        The duchies only have ever funded the royals therefore there is no way in hell the govt can take that. In the case of the crown that’s a precedence setting legal decision.
        Now if you forcefully remove them, your can take it all.


      • @Lak this statement contradicts itself
        “It’s inexplicable why the public believe these estates ever belonged to the family who magnanimously gave it upto the govt except for a small annuity.”
        If they gave it up it belonged to them.
        The question then becomes does dissolving the monarchy equate to a breach of contract and if so who is responsible to fund the government
        The duchies do not belong to govt and only fund the royals that’s an easier decision legally.

      • LAK says:

        Formerly known as amy: The land didn’t belong to the King. Anyone who says as much doesn’t understand the norman system of govt of England. When William the conqueror took England, the land was carved up into personal estates for himself and those barons that helped him as personal reward. However, they also parceled up the crown estates to finance govt specifically so no one would be burdened with taxes pertaining to govt business from their personal estates unless it was absolutely necessary.

        The documents are very clear that this land doesn’t personally belong to anyone and is to be used to finance army, parliament, judiciary and the royal household. William the Conqueror wasn’t a Louis 14 who saw the state as himself and therefore everything belonged to him personally. He instituted a system of govt that separated state and personal. This separation was legally reaffirmed by Henry 4 because his personal duchy of Lancaster came into contention when he became King, and it was reinforced again by Edward 4 when the duchy of Lancaster was ceased by the crown as punishment for treason.

        To say that the lands belonged to the King by default is the same as saying the white house belongs to Donald Trump (or any sitting president) personally by default. It belongs to the govt which is the people. The monarch was charged with managing it just as Charles is charges with managing the duchy of Cornwall though it doesn’t belong to him.

        What George 3 did was to give the MANAGEMENT back to parliament on condition that his expenses as head of state were still being met. This included the royal household. This is the exact same scenerio in Ireland. Where the management of the estate has been given back to the govt, but the expenses of the crown are still being met from a portion of the estate.

        Finally that comment of mine that you think contradicts itself is actually sarcasm pointing at a lie that with repetition has come to be believed as truth. What i was saying is that the public has been gaslighted into believing that the royals self-sacrificed their own personal wealth to the govt except for the small annual financial annuity it gives them in exchange of remaining in power. The public believes all this wealth will be returned to the royals when we get rid of them. That is a bald lie and takes a very small search to uncover. Like the history of england (every text book and basic history lessons) Or wikipedia if you can’t be bothered to dig deeper!!

        The truth is that they did not give up anything. They only gave up the onerous task of managing a govt property. In effect they downsized their responsibilities whilst retaining the salary and perks of the job. If we get rid of them, we stop paying that salary and perks.

      • Tina says:

        @Amy, as LAK said, the Crown Estate was handed over to the state, along with the responsibility for managing the government, in exchange for what became the Civil List. Whoever it once belonged to, it belongs to the state now. The monarch doesn’t have to “sign away” the Crown Estate upon acceding to the throne, that’s a myth. And the Irish government pays rent to the Crown Estate because it asserts ownership over the seabed of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, that’s a geographical and historical issue.

        The ownership of the Crown Estate does not set a precedent for any other land ownership in the UK. It is owned by the Queen “in right of the Crown,” which is not at all similar to standard freehold or leasehold ownership. The Duchies are similar in that they belong to the person (the Queen, Charles) in respect of their position, not privately. If the monarchy was abolished, there would certainly be court battles in respect of all three property holdings unless a generous private settlement was reached. But that in and of itself doesn’t indicate that they simply belong to the monarch/Prince of Wales absolutely. They don’t, they belong to us, the British people.

      • @ Tina “the Crown Estate was handed over to the state”
        This implies previous ownership

        “if the monarchy was abolished, there would certainly be court battles in respect of all three property holdings unless a generous private settlement was reached.
        IMO the settlement would be at a minimum the same amount as the civil list.
        The duchies have never funded anyone other than the royal family which is a hereditary position. You cant compare that to the presidency in the USA and the white house which is an elected office

      • Tina says:

        @Amy, I’m really not sure why the pre-1760 position should be of such importance to you. George III surrendered his claim to the Crown Estate and no longer had an obligation to pay for the cost of governing the country. In return, he was given the right to the civil list payments. Now, those civil list payments no longer exist following the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, which further modified the relationship between the monarch and the Crown. The relationship between the monarch and the rest of the government is constantly being modified, both in the form of legislation and in unwritten constitutional mores.

        None of us has any idea what a settlement between the government and an ex-monarch would look like. It would almost certainly be more than the amount of the present Sovereign Grant, as it would need to take the Duchies into account as well. But it would not be anywhere near the full value of the Crown Estate and the Duchies, as the monarch/PoW simply does not have a good claim to private ownership of them.

      • ABC says:

        I wouldn’t worry about it. Kate will have spent them dry by the time the Revolution comes. Coat-Dress anyone?

      • Addie says:

        Tina, LAK or anyone with knowledge on this matter:
        Charles has tried to seize the Duchy of Cornwall and have ownership transferred to his family. It failed but he has shown his hand. Yet there has been little written about this attempted coup of public property. Could he do this again?

      • Tina says:

        @Addie, the short answer is yes, he could, but it wouldn’t have a different outcome. David Cameron’s government was as sympathetic as any government would ever be to the royals, but as a matter of government policy, there is no way that any government, even a Conservative majority government, would relinquish the Duchy of Cornwall or any significant landholding to the royals without a fight.

  5. whatever says:

    It’s worth pointing out that Meghan has benefited from not having the ‘Old Gaurd’ such as Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton around. I’ve read in a few places that he was/is old fashioned and did things by the book. Would Meghan have been able to take part in the Royal Foundation Forum or go to the Commonwealth Service or that other Commonwealth event next month while not yet married if he and some others were still around? I don’t think so.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Whatever: I understand that certain staff members wield quite a bit of influence, but at the end of the day, isn’t it the Queen (and now Charles) calling the shots? I highly doubt JLP would have decided whether Meghan attended this service or not (and that’s just this one example).

  6. Rumi says:

    I don’t believe in institutions like the Royal family. However, I admire how Meghan has just hit the ground running. And I think Harry sees Meghan as his equal and you can see they are truly connected.
    Kate was the last woman standing. I respect that she set a target and accomplished it. Although it would have been nice to see her not morph into a 1950′s cliche. I hate most of her clothing choices they always look tweeniish / inappropriate.
    The Queen knows the game and its her event she knows that Meghan and Harry are professionals at their jobs and will only elevate this event. I just want to see Meghan bring some serious colour and unrestraint to her fashion.

    • Jayna says:

      Oh, stop with the “last woman standing.” William could have had anybody. He was Prince William and very, very handsome back in the day. He never broke up with her for long, because he missed her and/or because he was jealous and didn’t want anybody else dating her. They started out very young. I’ve had several friends who started out young have little breakups and got back together and eventually married. Were they the last woman standing? No. It’s more about maturity level in your 20s and being tied down for many young guys, who aren’t ready to commit to one person. Harry was a mess in his 20s. Meghan wouldn’t have lasted with him in his 20s.

      I believe William married her because he loved her but didn’t rush into settling down too soon. Thus, some rocky patches. Kate was a very pretty girl, with a great figure, and seem pretty compatible. She loved William, and it worked out. He could have easily moved on with someone else, when they broke up, but he didn’t.

      • LAK says:

        “William could have had anyone” not true at all.

      • Heidi says:

        William was obligated to marry anyone – did you see how he slouched at his ceremony? William treats Kate like dirt and always has. When he looks at her, it’s a look of bemusement and not love or respect.

      • sunsetsnow81 says:

        Not true at all. None of the blonde aristo girls wanted the royal lifestyle.

      • Merritt says:


        No, because that didn’t happen. I did see him sharing a joke with Kate and her father in the moments before the ceremony started. He was 28, he could have waited to get married.

      • Ollie says:

        Only idiots believe William hates his “babykins”.
        Their phones were hacked back then, William calling her Kate “Baby” and “Babykins”, telling her how much he misses her and wants to hear her voice etc.
        Not to forget that idiot William landed his helicopter in her backyard just to see and likely impress her. Charles got Kate a special car deal and paid for her security etc.
        That all happened for one reason: William loves Kate.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I know, and I always feel bad for her because of it. When it was pointed out, he didn’t wear a ring I didn’t like it because of the other things not because men or women have to wear rings. He just doesn’t seem to make any gestures or act as if he cares at all. I just look at her pictures from the beginning, and she has changed very drastically.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        William found out quite early that he couldn’t have any woman he wanted, he was turned down repeatedly by the aristo girls who wanted nothing to do with a serial cheater. He treated Kate as his ‘go to’ girl when he was in between girlfriends or just wanted a shag (he was caught bragging about how he could get sex whenever he wanted from her). He married her as she was the only woman who was willing to be with him regardless of how he behaved.

      • Natalie S says:

        I believe William loves Kate and they have a genuine connection and chemistry. I also think he’s probably extremely high-maintenance in addition to his life role being a huge pain for any woman who already comes from money and that sharply limited his prospects.

        The Middletons coddle William to the point of hiring a shoot for him. We know from Kate herself that William was apparently not there as much when George was a baby. What other family would put up with all that? So, while I agree that William chose Kate rather than was stuck with her, I don’t think there were that many women that he wanted banging down his door to be with him.

      • Maria says:

        If William didn’t want to get married he could have waited. 28 is still fairly young compared to other royal men like Frederick, Felipe both 36, Phillip 39, and Albert 53.

    • hmmm says:

      But Meghan hasn’t “hit the ground running” unless it means Harry helicoptering her out to a handful of big cities to be feted and to show her off. Geez.

      • Addie says:

        No, Meghan has not hit the ground running. She has simply been introduced by Harry to certain parts of the public. Walkabouts and listening solicitously to some young people is not ‘work’. The aim is to win public approval from the target group or this couple: kids and young people. Harry pulling out of the crowd a young black lass wanting to be an actress to be hugged by Meghan was very calculated/ heavy-handed. All this is self-serving. To pretend otherwise is naive.

        Though Meghan has intelligence, energy and curiosity lacking in Kate (and William), and is more articulate than them (and Harry) by a country mile, I can’t see her shaking things up as many hope. What she has done is be a figure of complete compliance: curtsying to the Queen (as an American, no less), changing religion, giving up her charity interests well before an engagement, as well as her income-generating activities.

      • Shelly says:

        Except for MM going to the burned out community on her own more than once

  7. Hmmmm says:

    Umm—and no I believe it’s a constitutional monarchy. The overthrow of William can be done by Parliament. So Liberty has some great points..

  8. Prairiegirl says:

    Annual reminder that those of us living in Commonwealth countries don’t care about or celebrate Commonwealth Day. #BritainThing
    xox and LOL,

    • bluhare says:

      Ha! I think the Queen is the one who cares about it. Pretty obvious at least William and Kate dont!

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      Ditto from Ontario. What an oxymoron, the Commonwealth. Masterful stroke of PR, that name.

    • Lady D says:

      I checked the calendar thinking it would be a holiday in BC but nope. So yeah, happy Commonwealth Day fellow countries:(

    • Addie says:

      DItto from Australia! No-one here cares. Indeed, what an oxymoron is the Commonwealth when the common wealth accrues to one family – even wanting to turn leadership of said organization into an hereditary position, FFS. For Brits and Americans in thrall to royalty the further geographically away from Britain, the more irrelevant the BRF is. They provide mild entertainment only. Over here we are not subject to daily tabloid doses of royals in their self-serving PR work using people as props, nor the emotional hold it clearly has over some Britons’ lives.

      Harry and Meghan will strike trouble if they think their gushy platitudes will work in Australia for too long, particularly with indigenous peoples who still today bear the consequences of British invasion. I’d imagine the same holds in Canada. Sadly, when they travel it is us who are burdened with their costs – again, money better spent on citizens here than entertaining a couple who fancy themselves as change agents without getting their hands dirty – except when a camera is to hand. That sentence applies to the utterly useless William and Kate too, and other family members. LAK is dead right when she says the charity work was a ploy to extend their longevity and cement financial privileges.

      I agree wholeheartedly with MRsBump in her post @3. I often wonder what the flip side is to the old chestnut that royals bring so much awareness to the said charity. That is, what are the costs to the charity in setting up such a visit? What are the costs to local councils for the security etc for the royals? Because it is local councils who have to fund it, meaning less money for local amenities. Is the charity able to demonstrate the impact of such a visit eg in terms of donations, offers to volunteer etc, say over 0-6 months after the visit? The papers cover these visits, but really, the event is just a PR prop for the royal and, if female, her clothes are disproportionally discussed (cost, brand, where you can get a copy, whether outfit is a repeat). Who cares what they wear? It really does not matter.

      • Prairiegirl says:

        Addie, aren’t folk in Australia celebrating *actual* national and state holidays on Monday? Maybe in New Zealand, too, if there are any Kiwis on the boards?

        I adore The Queen, God Save Her etc, but no thanks to the rest of them. Tolerable, at best.

      • Addie says:

        I forgot there was a Public Holiday today (it is already Monday here)!!

        Yes, some states have public holidays:
        • Labour Day – celebrates the eight-hour working day, a victory for workers in the mid-late 19th century (VIC);
        • Eight Hours Day – as above (TAS);
        • March Day – running of Adelaide Cup horse-racing event (SA);
        • Canberra Day – celebrates naming of Canberra (ACT).
        These public holidays have nothing to do with royalty or the Queen, with the exception of the Queen’s Birthday holiday. She does not give permission. They – and even the QB – are mandated by state and federal governments. We are an independent nation; we just have to sever the last tie…

        To be honest, everyone loves a Public Holiday, no matter the reason or whether one believes the rationale for it (eg Easter, Christmas, royalty). But interestingly, the Public Holiday of Australia Day has come into nation-wide discussion over the past few years and will probably do so for some time. The reason? Indigenous peoples call it Invasion Day, and reject the British refusal to view the land as uninhabited (terra nullius). This is a huge issue. There is support to change the actual date to some other calendar date and call it something else. I daresay when Australia becomes a republic, a Public Holiday will replace the Queen’s Birthday holiday.

        I agree with your sentiments regarding the Queen to a degree: she has honoured her declaration to serve her nation, though I disagree with the notion of hereditary power. And I think you are very generous that the ‘rest of them’ are tolerable! In my estimation they are below par, and should be weaned off the public teat to earn their own livings.

      • Addie says:

        Sorry Prairie girl – we don’t have a Commonwealth Day public holiday here or in NZ. See above for what the holiday’s stand for.

  9. aquarius64 says:

    So excited to see Meghan attend this event. I think it sends a message to the haters she is going to be a senior Royal so deal with it. Will and Kate should have been there for last year’s Commonwealth service as future monarch and consort. To miss it so you can have a boy’s weekend (and whatever Kate was doing) was bad form. Will deserved to get busted on video. If People is putting more focus on Meghan it’s because People is an American magazine and American Meghan is a local-girl-makes-good story.

    • Heidi says:

      Meghan is driven and has a great work ethic. I think she’ll do tons of work for charity because otherwise she’ll get really bored.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I do think that she’s a much more dynamic person than either William, Kate and Harry. I think that is a big reason why she’s seemingly fast-tracked, especially in comparison to Kate. Meghan doesn’t strike me as a person who is content to sit around, she forged a career of her own in acting and it seemed like she was working to transition into the whole life style market when she met Harry. She strikes me as a go-getter whereas Kate has never worked in her life – so I’m not surprised that Meghan seems to have a plan for royal life whereas Kate always seems as if she just coasts along a preset direction.

  10. anna says:

    Meghan is such a beautiful woman, I could look at her all day. I thought I would get over it, but no. There’s something about her. She’s perfect for this job.

  11. Harla says:

    Just to digress a moment, did anyone else feel during that moment at the Forum event when the moderator asked about disagreements that there have already been disagreements between Meghan and William? I got a strong feeling that those two have already and are going to butt heads frequently. William doesn’t like to listen to advice (by his own admission) and Meghan is passionate about the people and issues that are important to her so I don’t see her taking a lot of guff from William or staying silent while William makes one of his frequent Harry digs. Plus she is knowledgeable about PR/image, two areas where William definitely lacks, and she will work with the press which William refuses to do. I think Meghan’s inclusion into the Firm will be very interesting going forward…poor William just doesn’t know what he’s in for (hehehe)

    • Jayna says:

      I think he and Harry get into it. Meghan is a little new. I don’t see her having a disagreement outright by herself, just more in standing by Harry as a united front. If my sister worked on a charity together, we would get in to it. or butt heads at times. We are as close as William and Harry. We love each other very much. But one of us is bossier than the other, and it’s not me. LOL And we don’t always agree on things.

      I see what they said as normal with two siblings working together on a project. There will be disagreements, and it is easier to disagree with siblings in a more vocal manner than a partner in business, where sometimes you have to be more diplomatic.

    • Lorelai says:

      @Harla: I didn’t happen to notice it at the forum, but I do agree that of the four people up there, going forward, William and Meghan are the most likely to argue when it comes to matters re: their philanthropy and PR. Kate and Harry are much more non-confrontational.

    • Claire says:

      Oh please. I get sick of people thinking she is so PR savvy. She’s a 3rd rate actress and he’s been in the public eye his whole life. I sense she loves being the centre of attention. She’ll be put in her place soon enough. So much credit given to someone hardly anyone knew existed a year ago.

      • Olenna says:

        And, just what is her place, Claire? What a nasty comment. I suppose you think you’re better than her to make such a demeaning comment. Or are you so lackey-minded that you think the royals are above all and their blood sacred? Your resentment against someone you don’t even know except through tabloid news and gossip is pathetic.

      • Ari says:

        Her place? What is that? I do think she is savvy. She managed to crave our a career and get herself in high society from hardwork and charm. That is quite different than being born into something and it being handed to you. So yeah people respect her success. It is expected.

      • Claire says:

        Her place? She’s the soon to be wife of Harry. Not the Queen or spokesperson for the BRF. Nasty? My comment is nothing compared to the nastiness you have shown on Kate threads. What a hypocrite. You don’t know her and either do I. We judge on what we read and see. So far I’ve seen nothing extradonary other than she speaks over others and is highly opiniated. I see narcissism. Typical actress!

      • Petty Riperton says:

        I see a whole bunch of salt in your diet that’s not good claire
        You must haven’t looked at the Daily Mail’s comments on Meghan posts those are real nasty compared to the snowflake comments silverspoon Kate gets.

      • N. says:

        @Olenna: Meghan’s place is exactly where Fergie was: Wife of another son who whill never be king. To the Palace, she and Harry are only interesting for PR reasons and only as long as William’s children are too young to be in the public eye.
        Once George, Charlotte and their little brother/sister are old enough to be the faces of the Monarchy, Harry and Meghan will be cast aside just like Andrew and Edward and their spouses. No need to get all riled up, it is what it is.

      • Addie says:

        N. – yes, this is true. It’s an unemotional assessment and accurate, unless something untoward happens eg death, William stepping down, abolition of the monarchy.

        At present, Meghan is new and as such attracts attention. So did Fergie! And as the younger Cambridge’s grow into young adulthood, all eyes will be on them. Just the way it works.

      • sunsetsnow81 says:

        “Put in her place!” By who? You!? Your comment really rubbed me the wrong way and it sounded elitist at best and something else altogether at worst

      • Olenna says:

        Well, well, well, looks like the Upstairs, Downstairs crew from the DM was in the house yesterday. Claire, et al., thanks for answering my questions, LOL!

    • So Cal says:

      That question during the forum baffled me. What is there to disagree about when it comes to helping charities?

      • Addie says:

        Maybe who will get the credit for something, who will be the most prominent spokesperson, how much (if any) ‘work’ they will actually do? Harry often looked constrained in those trio appearances, a third wheel, whereas when he’s operating under his own steam he has more energy, possibly because he can direct his activities without having to defer to his lump of a brother and sister-in-law.

  12. TSK says:

    I have a question regarding William And Katherine vs. Harry and Megan. In an alternate timeline, if Harry had met and marry Megan first. Would William had marry Kate? Would he still be work shy? Or would he found a spouse that would had recognize some sort of potential him and push him to succeed in his role?

  13. NIKKI says:

    Lol. Yes. As someone born into a commonwealth and now residing in another commonwealth, I’m still waiting to see how this ‘association’ benefits others in similar positions and myself.

    As JJ once sung, ‘what have you done for me lately?’

    Majority of us work so hard and try to live our best lives.

    Still, I enjoy reading the conjecture presented on all this rubbish.


    • Addie says:

      I think we will just be paying for H+M when they visit, as we do for all these other trips. They change nothing for us, and deliver nothing tangible to us. Harry’s new role in the Commonwealth gives him and Meghan opportunities to recuse themselves from Britain. I can’t think what they have to offer indigenous peoples of the Commonwealth. The only thing I know for sure is they won’t stick around long enough to actually get their hands dirty or follow through. Photo ops don’t last that long.

  14. Digital Unicorn says:

    The lazy chickens are coming home to roost for the work-shy Cambridges. The passive aggressive tabloid snark is strong and any attempts to appear ‘keen and hard working’ will be continually met with side eye’s.

    And i agree with what other posters have said – Harry is the fave to take over the throne. I think he’s being groomed for it as am sure when Chuck takes the throne there will be fireworks between him and his eldest son and heir. I will put on my tin foil tiara and say that I believe William will never be King – he’s another Edward VIII. He’ll be embroiled in a scandal that will force him (and his children) out of the succession, walking away with a very, VERY nice pension.

    • Jayna says:

      Harry has zero desire to be king, zero. Who would? And you think he’s being groomed? I don’t. It wouldn’t even enter the Queen’s mind. And you may not see it, but many people are very fond of Kate and William and their adorable children.

      • whatever says:

        “Harry has zero desire to be king, zero. Who would?”

        True, didn’t Harry say in an interview that no one wants the ‘top job’? hmmm..

        Meghan may want Harry to be King so that Harry has a defined role and she, in turn, can improve her social status but will Harry want to go along with it? that’s an uncertainty.

      • magnoliarose says:


        What? That makes no sense. The only people who could want that is the powers that be. There has been nothing to assume she wants that. Nothing in her demeanor or interviews supports that theory.
        That would have to be true of anyone who marries into the BRF. Do you think that about Kate? Sophie? Fergie? If anything it would be Kate since that would be the surest bet.

      • Liberty says:

        The Queen’s father didn’t want the job, but took it when it was thrust upon him. That is called a sense of duty, beyond personal desires, and the Queen inherited it and I think Harry as well — understanding what duty demands and making the best of it. Not every person has this capacity; I think William simply doesn’t and would be happier in a different sort of role.

        In a business sense, William is the underperforming candidate. Harry is the one who is stepping up, even if this was not his dream life. If I wanted my business to last, succeed, or grow, I would note this.

      • whatever says:


        I said “may” want too. She seems driven and ambitious enough. She has shown in the past, not once but twice, that an improvement in status is important to her (firstly getting into the upper echelons of Candian/Toronto society and now joining the BRF). I could definitely see her being a driving force behind a “Harry for King” campaign, I just don’t think he has enough drive, ambition or desire to be King on his own. I think he is more than happy just being the “spare”.

      • Olenna says:

        Meghan “may” want to improve her social status? Improve it to what? She “may” campaign for Harry to be king? Who is she going to campaign with? In one sentence, she’s shrewd and ambitious; in the next she’s an idiotic megalomaniac. Ha! I got my pinky in position for a nod to Dr. Evil. The stories and projections are getting more fantastic by the day as we approach the wedding date.

      • whatever says:


        “Meghan “may” want to improve her social status? Improve it to what?”

        Erm…from a Duchess and the wife a spare to Queen Consort…wasn’t that obvious to you? Sorry, I’ll be clearer next time :-)

        As pointed out elsewhere in this post she’s driven, ambitious, a go-getter and is someone who isn’t content with just sitting around. I can see her getting bored with having to play second fiddle to Kate (and William) and wanting to “better” herself and her family’s position within the BRF. This isn’t as ridiculous and you want people to believe, after all she has already” bettered” her status and position in the world by joining the British Royal Family.

        I’m sure there is already a low key “Harry for King” campaign going on within the BRF , nearly everyone on here has already alluded to it. Her drive and ambitious could be a positive to this, especially if Harry needs persuading.

      • Meghan was content playing second fiddle to harvey and donna. This is no different. I do hope that they start their own side hustle like the Yorks with the ski resort because it will keep her busy and will be a good investment for their children’s future.

      • Msthang says:

        Jayna, Do you think it is really up to the Queen,and not the powers behind the throne?

    • Heidi says:

      LOL Chickens are hardworking and very social and William and Kate are not !

      It’s very evident that ever since Meghan came into the picture, that Kate has been doing more public events. Hopefully, Meghan will be a good influence on Kate and they will be come friends. Not the trouble-making kind of friends like Princess Diana and Sarah were :) And hopefully Megan can bring back Kate’s personality- it was there at the beginning but was squashed after she wed William.

    • Kitty says:

      Oh I believe he will not be King as well. I believe The Queen knows this, she is thinking about the future of the monarchy even when Charles(unpopular) will take over the throne. She’s hoping for some miracle.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Charles isn’t as unpopular as he once was, his is popular with many young people due to the Princes’s Trust. He has touched a lot of young people’s lives through the work of the trust – its an amazing organisation and it would be sad to see it demise when he becomes King as none of his sons want to take it over.

        Nothing will be done about William and Katie Keen while TQ is still alive – Charles will give the Monarchy the shake it needs to survive the 21st century. The Windsors are survivors if nothing else – it that means chucking William and his kids out of succession then it will be done.

      • hope says:

        Charles isn’t popular with the public… William is. He presents a wholesome family image. The polls show just how unpopular Charles really is! If Harry was really being groomed, wouldn’t Harry be going to the Middle East?? That’s a big step the BRF are taking and they have decided to send William. I wonder why Charles isn’t going instead?

      • Kitty says:

        @hope, William going to the Middle East won’t change anything. He’s not good with soft diplomacy.

      • Tina says:

        @Kitty, totally agree. if William was good with soft diplomacy, we would have had the World Cup.

      • namasta says:

        Approval ratings from december gives William and Harry 81, The Queen 80, Kate 77, prince Philip 65, prince Charles 47 and Camilla 33.

    • minx says:

      I don’t see any “grooming” going on at all. Elizabeth will rule till she dies, Charles will do the same and then William.

      • Sage says:

        I agree, there is no grooming for Harry to be King. Lmao. This will never happen. However, I don’t think Charles will see the throne. He looks ill.

      • Ari says:

        The only grooming is for Harry to have a more prominent role. He will never be king unless something horrible happens and no one wishes that. I do think he will take on more roles, especially in the commonwealth and military. People can’t forget that William and Harry are the only children of the future sovereign. It not like with the Queen who had four to split duties and they were fairly young and still worked. It won’t be the same with Charlies takes over. So of course Harry (and Meghan) will have way more on their plates. As will William and Kate but their duties will be on a different level as the heir apparent.

      • Nic919 says:

        In 1935 no one would have imagined that a king would abdicate and yet it happened a year later. While it is very unlikely that Harry becomes king, it is not impossible. The BRF knows they need to justify their existence and placing someone popular like Harry in more prominent roles helps the BRF overall. I don’t think they are looking to make Harry king over William, but they are aware of how he is the most relatable and his engagement to Meghan has brought the BRF in the 21 century. Any PR person worth their salt will take advantage of this popularity.

      • Agreed. This Harry is going to be King is just as weird as the William is going to be king instead of Charles mess.

  15. Alix says:

    Nice that People stopped the “Princess Kate” stuff; now if they could just latch on to the fact that she hasn’t been “Kate Middleton” for years now.

    I’d sure want to be there to hear from Dr. Bastawrous — he sounds amazing!!

    • Lorelai says:

      @Alix: it IS very interesting that the “Princess Kate” nonsense stopped in an article about Meghan.
      However, media outlets are never going to stop calling her Kate Middleton and it’s been explained here many times why that is the case (SEO, etc.).

      I agree about the doctor speaking tomorrow! I wonder if his comments will be published anywhere for us to read. He sounds fascinating.

  16. Lexa says:

    Yes, the Queen/Prince Charles is definitely going to replace William with Harry… that’s why William has been accompanying her to more events and stepping in to do more investitures. There have also been plenty of stories of her quietly guiding him and giving him hands-on lessons about her daily tasks. If heirs were going to be chosen by how much their parents like them, Charles would’ve been pushed out a long time ago, especially as he was involved in arguably one of the bigger scandals in royal history in the last 100 years. Frankly, the one aspect of William I’ve always understood is his rocky relationship with his father, which is almost certainly informed by him being closer to his mother and Charles’s manipulations of him and the press in the years after her death. And it would go to George, not Harry—the most Harry will be is a regent for him imo.

    I think what’s happening is that the BRF is in a panic at the thought of what will happen when the Queen dies and the still fairly unpopular Charles inherits the throne. It’s far more likely we see the monarchy dissolve than Harry randomly becoming king.

    • Kitty says:

      I disagree. Anything can happen. All things are possible. But I would not be shocked if the monarchy becomes fragile and declines once The Queen passes away. I think she needs security now whilst she is alive so she can be at peace.

    • Guest says:

      Doubt the monarchy will dissolve. William will take the throne, either be an awful king or a subpar one. Then George will take over and either be like his lazy father or maybe a little better then his grandfather. England will never have another monarch like Elizabeth. Once she dies I think the gloves come off with the press. It’s going to be interesting. As for harry i think he’s smart enough to know he has to carve out his own path. Highly doubt he’s going to be stupid like his uncle Andrew.

      I do think this though William would be stupid not to use harry. George and Charlotte won’t be able to do anything worthwhile for many years.

      • Jayna says:

        I agree. And if Prince Charles lives as long as his mom and dad, he will be around a long time, so Prince William will have plenty of time to live a life without having the constraints of being the king. Prince Charles, if he becomes the king in the next two or three years, could be there for 20 years or more. He’s 69 right now. Queen Elizabeth is 91 and still performing duties, even if slowing down. That gives William another 20 to 25 years before it’s his turn.

      • whatever says:


        I agree, people are acting like William will become King in the next 2-3 years but The Queen is almost 92, Prince Phillip is almost 97 and the Queen Mother lived until she was 101. In theory, Prince Charles could live until he is 100 which gives William 30 years – 3 decades to make his mark, he has the time to do that.

        And if there is a threat to the Monarchy being abolished in the aftermath of the Queen’s death it won’t be because of William it will be because of Charles. Its worth remembering that.

      • Ari says:

        Agreed. I think the Queen has another 5 years left in her. Charles likely will also live into his 90s. That means William be in his late 50s/early 60s when he take over.

      • Tina says:

        Prince Charles, admire him though I do, hangs out with people 20-30 years older than he is and looks much older than late sixties. I do not think he will be king for more than 10 years.

      • LAK says:

        What part of William’s history gives anyone confidence that he will discover a work ethic or even a passion in the future?

        He hasn’t turned his current title into anything meaningful unlike his father, brother and late mother. He does only what is required of him and not much else. Brags about his refusal to take on more, and has expressed a wish to be a part-time King at best……

    • Princessk says:

      By way of light hearted possibilities consider this: In many African countries royal families do follow the hereditary model but unlike most European models they have Royal Houses which are all related to a common ancestor going back centuries. When a monarch dies, the first borne son does not automatically inherit the title but all eligible contenders are entitled to throw their hats into the ring and compete to become the next King, and a special Council drawn from the nobility or landed gentry sit in private to choose the most suitable candidate for the job.Sometimes it operates on the basis of the Royal Houses taking turns in rotation to put forward a prospective successor. I am sure the British monarchy could implement this more democratic model. 😉

  17. The Original G says:

    Elizabeth will take the monarchy to the finish line of her own life with honour. She’s a remarkable person who carved a niche out in GB that has been singular. I rather doubt that Charles is remotely on the same level and I know that William is not.

    The monarchy will be over when Elizabeth’s reign ends and she knows this too I believe, and so do most people.

    BTW, I wonder if William suffers from untreated depression?

  18. Lorelai says:

    Sort of related- this post reminded me that it was a year ago that William pulled that BS with the ski trip and it reminded me how mad I was about how it was handled.

    I still can’t believe that Kate just showed up at the St. Patrick’s Day event with him smiling as if photos of him getting cozy with that girl at the club hadn’t just been published, and then jetted off to Paris that same night and smiled all throughout that trip as well.

    I don’t know what I expected to happen, but it made me lose any shred of respect I might have had left for Kate. At a minimum, I think she should have done the shamrock event solo and refused to go to Paris. He completely humiliated her in front of the *entire world* and she just took it, proceeded as if nothing had ever happened, and kept that same smile on her face the entire time.


  19. Skylark says:

    I still think Meghan should run as fast as her legs can carry her away from this family.

    But if not, and she’s decided that, despite all the downsides, she’s still willing to throw her lot in with the hapless Harry, I do look forward to seeing her wedding dress!

  20. Vava says:

    Have to say I laughed at the phrase, “senior royals”. William and Kate are a DISGRACE.

  21. Petty Riperton says:

    Harry doesn’t want to be king he enjoys the little extra freedom that he has.
    If we keeping it 100 none of the young royals are doing as much as they should. Senior citizens have been running laps around them for years now.
    It shouldn’t have took a 90 something man to retire or a new soon to be wife to come on the scene to do their “jobs”
    I don’t care about the not a full time royal excuse either.

    The belittling of one royal’s job compared to the others is ridiculous considering they all do the same pretending to be interested for an hour shake hands, take a picture and leave.

    Y’all giving Meghan too much credit if she was as ambitious as y’all claim she would’ve invested in more acting classes. Pretty face but horrible acting skills.

    • Addie says:

      I don’t understand why a ‘royal’ version of full-time is very different from the normal interpretation of that term. Are they too precious to put in 40 hours a week on a whole raft of activities? Or simply too unaccomplished? If there is to be a monarch, fund that one person and spouse; the rest can get jobs until or if tapped for the top job. There is no need to fund them all just to keep their splendiferous egos intact. And the Queen has been apportioning BH repair money to family for years. No transparency.

      As for Harry’s statement about no-one wanting the top job, he surely meant that no-one wanted to see the Queen die. That’s it. her concern is to tie down as much as possible for her family before she dies: self-interest again. She knows popularity of any kind rests with her longevity; once she dies, interest will wane and the monarchy inevitably dissolve, as it should.

  22. Ctnflf says:

    Holy lord. Holy.. wut? Is this? Comment thread? What is even happening???

    • Tina says:

      I mean, no. Harry will not be king. It will all unfold as expected. But you can’t blame commenters for thinking that William and Kate’s fundamental laziness will have some consequences. It will, it’s just that none of us can predict what those consequences necessarily will be.

      • Jayna says:

        Whatever the consequences, it won’t be William and Kate being pushed aside. It will never happen. And like I said, reading on here is like reading Fox News by some commenters, in that they are living in a bubble without objectivity. Kate and William are lazy. They will get better because of Meghan coming on and because of the retirement of Prince Philip and age of the queen. And Kate will never be as engaging as Meghan. But make no mistake, there is a real fondness by many people for William and Kate and George and Charlotte. Many on here absolutely refuse to see that. Kate has been in the royal family for years now, and in the public consciousness as his girlfriend for years. If anyone thinks that that affection is going to switch to wanting Harry and Meghan to replace them and Harry to be king, they are dreaming. In fact, they would turn on Meghan. It would not be pretty. People would turn on them and be protective of William and Kate. It’s just common sense.

        William will never step down, and no one in the royal family wants him to step down, despite some far-out conjecture on here that that is the case. And Harry would never do that unless his brother wanted it, which William will never do.

  23. Masamf says:

    I really had a lot of fun with and enjoyed reading this entire thread so, thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It is just conjecture. Lol
      Fun right? It entertained me too.

      • LAK says:

        @ magnoliarose: Apparently we are not allowed to speculate even if we are using precedence.

        Also, the way people are throwing the word ‘never’ about…….it’s as if they’ve never (ha!)opened a history book or watched recent history to see how ‘never’ has routinely not applied in the history of the kings and Queens of England. 😊

      • I very much enjoyed this thread. The only bother for me were all the “nevers,” and all of the real anger some feel about some fun speculation! It’s especially bothersome when it’s coming from people I know are American, like me, telling those from U.K. about their own government. LOL

      • Masamf says:

        It was a lot of fun. Just reading some people argue and argue about others conjectures going all this will never ever happen was…really funny. Personally, reading the “don’t be surprised if this or that”….”never say never, this and that happened when nobody thought it would ever happen”……”it could be this or that” …..was enough to tell me people were only speculating but, I guess some missed those clues. And the funniest is some getting mad at the conjectures, “Harry and Meghan will never be this and that…why are some even writing this annoying stuff…William and Kate will always be…” LOL, very very funny and fun to read. Theres a huge need for people to loosen up a bit IMVHO

      • Lorelai says:

        This was maybe my favorite CB thread ever! Fascinating and so informative. Thank you, ladies!

  24. Josie says:

    It’s undeniable that the succession has been changed by Parliament, acting with economic and social elites outside of government and with the collusion of the “Grey men,” when heirs were considered threats to the future of the monarchy. Being lazy and disinterested has not historically been considered a problem, however. If anything, disengaged heirs — and monarchs — are welcomed by the political elite.

    James II was removed because he wanted to reclaim political powers that his predecessors had (reluctantly) ceded. Edward VIII was removed because he was dabbling in foreign affairs with Britain’s enemies. And neither was of them was removed until a crisis point had been reached.

    I think there’s undoubtably a battle being waged between Clarence House and Kensington Palace. I think William and Charles flat out aren’t getting along. [I think William and Harry have forged a surprisingly close bond, breaking historical precedent, but that’s not relevant to this discussion. David and Bertie were reasonably close, too.] Do I think Parliament and the elite considers this Wales-Cambridge war a potential crisis? No. Do I think Parliament and the elite consider William’s workshy ways a crisis? No. They’ve had workshy heirs who hated their parents take the throne before, many times. (See: Edward VII)

    Honestly, HM has been on the throne so long, and Charles & Camilla represent so many breaks with tradition, it’s almost impossible to point to precedent any more in the first place. But the idea that William being workshy or unpopular with his father poses a threat to his status as heir doesn’t “fit”. Bluntly, he looks like the norm, not the exception, in the long history of heirs. He’s going to have to do something much more troublesome (cozy up with Ukip? Align himself with Putin?) before I start looking for the level of political upheaval at Westminster being tossed around here.

    • LAK says:

      Point of correction regarding Edward 7. It wasn’t so much that he was workshy as Victoria making sure that he never, ever got any work. She actively and consistently told her politicians and prime ministers to keep work away from him. She was furious and blocked the few times he managed to get through to them and they were on the brink of sending work his way.

      It’s no wonder he retired to partying and vacationing. Together with Victoria’s relentless negative campaign against him, the country was waiting for his reign to be a monumental disaster. He turned out to be very pragmatic and with a popular touch. Most of the workings of the current royal family are down to him.

  25. Kaz says:

    So interested to read all the many and varied comments. I think Charles and Camilla have been doing a pretty good job so far. It would be very sad if the Princes’ Trust didn’t continue as it has been instrumental in helping so many young people. Also the Duke of Edinburgh Award, I hope it doesn’t fade into obscurity with Prince Edward. It makes me wonder how we will view Harry and William in another 20 years – will Harry be another feckless Andrew? Will William be the King in Waiting? Will George be snorting cocaine and going off the rails in Goa? I suspect Sophie will be a little like Princess Anne, hardworking and well-regarded. Oh for a crystal ball.

  26. Starlight says:

    Beginning to think the British royals are losing their mystique, MM wearing trousers at public outings, Charles dropping Queen Consort from his web page hinting Queen Camilla is on the cards and to top it all William hinting on taking MM up the aisle, where is her father the appropriate family member to give away his divorced daughter. The rule changing to suit is unbelievable

  27. Princessk says:

    Really looking forward to seeing what Meghan will be wearing, a coat dress? Will she wear tights or go bare legged? also its hat time again. 😁

  28. Tan says:

    I hate this stupid markle kate comparison

    I mean Kate married like 7 yrs back, queen and philip were working full steam then. Philip is retired
    They are even older now

    And I doubt above 90 people have time to think of how to save dynasty by playing favorites with grandchildren. They probably r too busy with the medication listing and thinking of old memories and death and life wasted and what not.

    And the day dreaming of some commentators here. Teams fighting and winning victory. Of what? An archaic institution which is essentially a leech? And harry and meghan being king and queen would be better how? Like they will stop being the leeches they currently are?

    For all we know, 4 of them are enjoying fine wining and dining together while laughing at our stupidity

  29. Kitty says:

    What makes you guys think the monarchy will dissolve when The Queen is gone?