Duchess Meghan will likely take over the Queen’s National Theatre patronage

Royals Xmas Day church

This is very interesting – we’ve heard for a few months that the Duchess of Cambridge and Duchess of Sussex would be announcing new projects, new patronages, new royal work. Some of us were expecting Kate to launch her big solo initiative in November or December, but that didn’t happen, so maybe it will happen this month. As for Meghan, we’ve been waiting to see which patronages she would take on. In December, we heard that Meghan will likely become the patroness to the Campaign for Female Education (CAMFED), an international organization involved with (you guessed it) educating girls in developing nations. Now we’re hearing that Meghan will likely take over one of the Queen’s long-held patronages too: Meghan will be the patron of the National Theatre.

She is the Hollywood starlet who has found her greatest part as the most glamorous member of the Royal Family. And now the Duchess of Sussex is set to take over the regal role of patron of the National Theatre from the Queen, The Mail on Sunday has learned. According to royal sources, Her Majesty has made the decision that Meghan should be given the coveted position as a mark of her growing confidence in the Duchess. It is understood the appointment will be announced in the next few days.

Last month, Meghan had a private meeting with Rufus Norris, the director of the National Theatre, and, according to sources, they discussed plans for her role. Royal insiders believe Meghan’s career as an actress makes her a ‘natural fit’ for the position. The handover from the Queen will lower the curtain on an association going back decades. Founded by Sir Laurence Olivier in 1963, the National first had its home at the Old Vic theatre, but relocated to its current home on the South Bank in 1976. One part of Meghan’s job will be strengthening connections between the theatre and American benefactors, and the hope is the Duchess will add a ‘Meghan dividend’.

The National Theatre has an office in New York and many of the company’s most successful productions including History Boys and War Horse have opened to rave reviews on Broadway. Part of the role will see Meghan becoming involved with The American Associates of the National Theatre – a New York-based charity which contributes more than £3million a year to supporting the National’s work.

Rufus Norris, who succeeded Sir Nicholas Hytner as director of the National Theatre in 2015 and who lived in Ethiopia, Malaysia and Nigeria as a child, is said to be acutely aware of promoting openness to different cultures. Until now, however, he hasn’t openly courted the theatre’s connection to the Royal Family, saying last year that the National did not use the ‘Royal’ prefix for fear of being considered elitist. He said: ‘This country is still very class divided and anything that adds to that perception, that this place is not open to everybody, could be a downfall.’

The Duchess, who has been outspoken about the racism her mother Doria experienced, is said to have bonded with Mr Norris. She has taken a great interest in the arts since moving to Britain. Meghan and Harry attended a benefit performance of the hit musical Hamilton to support Harry’s charity Sentebale.

Royal sources said Meghan has been holding various private meetings with organisations that tie in with her charitable and humanitarian interests. She is expected to begin work with these groups before taking leave to give birth to her first child later this year.

[From The Daily Mail]

It’s a smart connection, and it’s a sign of just how much regard the Queen has for Meghan. It doesn’t sound like it’s one of those patronages where Meghan will be expected to turn up once or twice a year at most – if she gets this, there will probably be meetings and she’ll be expected to wine-and-dine American donors and raise the profile of the British-American associations. I suspect that Meghan’s patronages will follow the same kind of ratio – one CAMFED, then one artsy patronage. One serious, international-flavor patronage, and then one local and “softer” patronage.

Royals Xmas Day church

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.

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

30 Responses to “Duchess Meghan will likely take over the Queen’s National Theatre patronage”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Annie. says:

    I would love it if she could take this patronage since it goes perfectly with her interests and previous profession, but isn’t this one of those patronages that pass from monarch to monarch? I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember reading something like that.

    As for Meghan’s patronages, I am hoping she takes on some stuff that is not really big, so that she can develop it and work on it in her way. So I am more excited for her smaller possible patronages than for any big thing she could get

    • Junejuli says:

      No the National Theatre is not passed on from monarch to monarch. The national theatre is still fairly new compared to some of the other long standing theatres in the UK.

  2. Olivegreen says:

    The Queen offloaded some of her patronages back in 2016 to family members. She’ll be offloading some more this year to various family members.

    I don’t think the younger generation want as many patronages as the older generation. I can see both positives & negatives with this approach. While I can see the advantage of devoting yourself to a few causes it’ll be a shame for hundreds of charities to lose a royal patron.

    • Belluga says:

      Plus, so far they’ve not been as committed to the at the “devoting more time to each patronage” part as they have been to the “taking on fewer patronages” part.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Belluga exactly. It would be nice to see the “devoting more time” aspect that they keep talking about.

    • Chrome says:

      William, Kate and Harry declared they wanted less patronages so that they could do more with them. That just hasn’t happened, and it’s been a few years. So don’t hold your breath. Talk is cheap. I highly doubt Meghan will be allowed to take on more patronages than the trio. She’ll have to fit in.

      Meghan should take on less well-known and less glamorous patronages in the UK. She can then shape them and lift their chances for public donations. The National Theatre doesn’t need a royal patron anymore than the V and A needs Kate Middleton as patron. They are powerhouses. The NT even ditched its ‘Royal’ moniker to appear less elitist!!

      It may interest readers here to know that several of the poorest areas in Europe are located in the UK. So maybe Meghan can do some good for these regions. It would also see her accepted more quickly if she got to know the British people.; walkabouts don’t really cut it. The Commonwealth doesn’t need Harry and Meghan, and nor do the swanky types in New York. It’s all very well wanting to be a global figure but the British are paying for royals indirectly (through Duchy profits and tax write-offs) and directly (security, travel, engagements etc) so Brits in need should be the royals’ first priority.

      • hot says:

        I agree about the commonwealth not needing Harry and Meghan. That’s a very racist, self indulgent dream of theirs. they see themselves as some colonial heroes out to save the brown people of the world. Still think her wedding veil was insulting. imagine, someone with a veil with the confederacy flag on it..

      • Lorelei says:

        @Chrome, ITA. Just like Wimbledon and BAFTA don’t really need any extra “support” or visibility.

        But I guess as long as this is the way the royals do it, good for Meghan for getting this one.

      • Alyse says:

        I agree. I am not that impressed with what she’s been given so far. It’s more of an International flavour, when I think she needs to get to know the challenges of the average Briton.

      • Tina says:

        I wish the Queen had given Meghan the patronage of the RSC. The West Midlands need a shot of Meghan’s glamour much more than the South Bank does.

      • sid says:

        “Meghan should take on less well-known and less glamorous patronages in the UK.”

        I don’t know if she will officially be a patron, but the Hub Kitchen project was about as unknown and unglamorous as it gets. It also served to bring in members of the British community who aren’t always seen as being “British” and I would imagine that the kitchen is now on the donation list for a lot of people who never would have known of it prior. That’s a pretty good start for someone who hasn’t even been in the family for a year.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There are different types of patronages. Attending the annual church fete at X church sometimes counts as being the patron.

  3. aquarius64 says:

    A wonderful patronage for Meghan given her background. And nice to see some positive news at this moment.

  4. Cidy says:

    I think that would be a lovely fit!

  5. Belluga says:

    This is a very good patronage for her, if this is true. I’m looking forward to seeing what else she’ll be taking on. A mix of local initiatives like the Hubb Kitchen, international projects and large charities would be great.

  6. Melissa says:

    This is great! It shows that The Queen has great consideration of Meghan

  7. Becks1 says:

    I’m excited for her list of patronages. I wouldn’t be surprised though if we only get maybe 3-4 patronages announced now, and then the rest coming out in the fall or even next January. I don’t think they are going to announce 20 patronages for her at the end (end-ish) of her pregnancy, but I guess we also haven’t heard what kind of leave she is going to take.

  8. Melissa says:

    This is huge for Meghan, it’s very prestigious. For example, Sir Laurence Olivier wad the first artistic director of National Theatre

  9. icantbelieveihadtomakeanothernsne says:

    Sooo when exactly are we supposed to trust the Daily Mail? If it’s something good about Meghan, than it’s true? Otherwise it’s fake? What happened to taking the Mail stories with a grain of salt?

  10. Rosie says:

    I know it’s great for Meghan, but I wonder how Prince Edward feels. The theatre was always his big passion. I don’t think the NT needs much help. Saw Hadestown this week, which is going to Broadway in March.

    • Lexa says:

      I feel a little for Edward too, even if I think Meghan is a good fit. I would also be a tiny bit surprised if this happened, not because Meghan doesn’t deserve it, but because I thought the National Theater patronage has been traditionally handed down from monarch to monarch…?

    • TeamAwesome says:

      I wondered about that as well. He is the patron of the National Youth Theatre.

    • Belluga says:

      Now I really want Meghan and Edward to do some artsy engagements together.

    • Becks1 says:

      @Lexa it says in the article that the NT was founded by Olivier in 1963, so its only ever been Elizabeth.

  11. Meganbot2000 says:

    I work a bit with the National and have a long relationship with them, so v excited for this.

    I doubt Meghan (or any of the patrons) would get involved beyond showing up for the big galas and stuff because that’s not really what the patrons do, but it’s still cool.

    And God the NT need it after a terrible year.

    • Tina says:

      God, hasn’t it just. I am loyal and book for everything, but there have been so many awful duds lately (Exit the King, Common, Salome, pretty much everything in the Dorfman). Everything decent has been American (Hadestown, Oslo, Network, Angels in America and Follies), Shakespeare (Antony & Cleopatra was pretty good, Macbeth was not) or new blood (Nine Night, Barber Shop Chronicles). No more David Hare, no more Caryl Churchill and no more (dare I say it) Tom Stoppard. And nothing more about Brexit. Give it five years and then people can write plays about it.

  12. Alyse Leitao says:

    Huh! Funnily enough I became a regular donator to CAMFED in October… didn’t relasie Meg had since become patron.
    Fantastic organisation to get behind!