Duchess Meghan likely to do some ‘private’ events during the 12-day trip to the UK

Prince Harry and Meghan Duchess of Sussex visit Canada House in London

In one week’s time, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will likely be “on the ground” in England, for the first time since early January, when they visited Canada House and then dropped the big Sussexit announcement. The press is already in a frenzy because they’ll be getting nearly two full weeks of appearances by Meghan and Harry, and that means fresh new storylines, fresh new smears and fresh new narratives about how the Sussexes are “ungrateful” because… the Sussexes are mad at the Queen and royal establishment for being petty, hypocritical a–holes. The media around this 12-day visit will not be kind.

As for the actual events during the visit, Meghan and Harry have seriously packed their schedule, which is sort of funny to me. They really don’t want to hang around for longer than they need to, so they’ll probably have, like, twenty to thirty events, meetings and appearances in a 12-day period. The Telegraph reported this weekend that Harry will make a day-trip to Scotland and do some event associated with Travalyst, his “eco-travel” something or other. The Telegraph also claims that Meghan is “expected to run her own series of private engagements” in addition to what has already been announced, like her appearance at the Endeavour Fund Awards on March 5, the Mountbatten Music Festival on March 7, an International Women’s Day event on March 8, and the Commonwealth Day service on March 9. The private engagements will probably not be open to the public (or media) and there will probably be Instagram posts about the events later.

One of those private/secret visits will probably be to the National Theatre, because Meghan is the “royal patron.” There’s also a dumb conversation about how Meghan could be “kicked out” as patron because she’s no longer going to be living in England.

The Duchess of Sussex should have only until Easter to prove her mettle as Royal Patron of the National Theatre, according to a top West End producer. Meghan Markle, 38, was gifted the honour last January by the Queen, who had been the National’s patron for 45 years. But in the light of ‘Megxit’, which has seen Meghan and her husband Prince Harry step away from royal duties and relocate to Canada, questions remain over her suitability for the job.

Now impresario Nica Burns, who co-owns The Nimax Group, which comprises six London West End theatres including The Palace, the Apollo and the Vaudeville, has said that the Duchess should not hold the position indefinitely.

‘I think we should give Meghan until Easter to say what she thinks is possible with her patronage,’ Ms Burns told me at a fundraising gala for the King’s Head’s 50th anniversary. ‘We have to give her a chance, forget who she is and give her some space. If she is not going to be doing any work with the National, then she should step down. But as she is a role model, we would rather she didn’t.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I don’t blame a theatre-owner for being concerned about the National Theatre’s royal patron barely doing anything for her patronage for the foreseeable future. I get that. But the tone of the coverage of this one thing is kind of ridiculous, like How Dare Meghan Not Stay In England So She Can Work With This One Patronage. Enough. It reminds me of Princess Diana’s last year, after the divorce was finalized and the palace took away her patronages too. Meghan would have loved to do more work with the National Theatre and all her patronages, but she was bullied and smeared out of the country.

Prince Harry and Meghan Duchess of Sussex visit Canada House in London

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid.

Related stories

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

80 Responses to “Duchess Meghan likely to do some ‘private’ events during the 12-day trip to the UK”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Leigh says:

    This is just another smear job. The Telegraph recently interviewed the Artistic Director of the National Theatre, who reported that Meghan remains engaged:

    ‘Norris added, “She is still very engaged, the conversations are regular and ongoing, there are ideas we are exploring. There has been no indication at all from her that her engagement with us would be anything other than business as usual—she has proven to be a very engaged patron, and we look forward to working with her.”

    He went on to explain that Meghan was interesting in meaningfully engaging with the Theatre—not just keeping up appearances. “She has star reach, she understands the nature of what we’re trying to do. She has been interested in the learning work, the work in communities, the work around the country,” Norris said. “She’s less interested in coming here and going to a string of press nights. It’s a really in-depth engagement with the range of work we do.”

    As for what shape that engagement might take, a royal source told the Telegraph that plans were in the works for a “much more substantive project” to come.‘

    This is what the haters are afraid of – Meghan and Harry continuing to succeed in being impactful in spite of constant efforts to sabotage them.

    • Noodle says:

      @Leigh, thank you for adding this. These quotes add to the nuance of the situation, and demonstrate the big picture. Of course it wasn’t included in the DM article because it conflicts with their narrative.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      Thanks for posting his quotes! I really wish he’d tell the board members (or whoever the other NT-associated people are who are making these more recent comments) to shut their pie holes!! It’s a bad look IMO as she’s clearly been engaged. Especially the quote about not wanting to do a string of “press nights” but really be engaged with the work the NT is doing in communities and around the country 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

    • Guest with Cat says:

      Wow they sure used the word “engaged” or some variant of it so often that I hope Meghan gets a ring out of it! Lol! In all seriousness, I’m glad at least one person there continue to set the record straight.

      I’m sure she is devoted to all of her patronages. She’s never shown herself to be a slacker. But some other Duchess has, and ignored a patronage to the point it is failing, but nobody is clutching pearls over that. Instead let’s pile on the Duchess who got bullied out of the country she is still trying to serve.

      I find her dedication and energy remarkable. I also had my first child at 38 and I sure as heck wasn’t running around trying to save everyone else’s bacon.

      The tabloid headlines are too whiney and stupid that even if you were the kind of person who wanted to wallow in this muck, I don’t see how you wouldn’t get bored. It’s the same old, same old.

      I would have thought that it would be far more exciting and lucrative to accurately report their work and engagements. Had the media done that and earned a healthy working relationship with the royal family, wouldn’t their own reputations and earnings soar? There’s no need to be sycophantic, just fair and accurate. The royals being the kind of people they are, there still would have been legitimate scandals and missteps to report on to spice things up a bit.

      • Love the — engaged used so much she should get a ring 😂 comment, Guest with Cat. And as to Kate —- not one word of criticism about how she was so busy prepping and releasing her 5-question survey that is still asking how she should help children —- that a royal patronage of hers that actually tries to help children failed. Maybe she could help make a difference if she stopped banging on about not knowing how to help and just actually helped in the smallest way.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @JaCountryLady – why, oh why do you think it is that no-one has pointed out that Kween cribbed the questions from the APA v.6 DevPsych text? Actual academics worked on that text; it’s shocking and scandalous that she has gotten away with stealing their work, and used it as a pretext for explaining why she’s been inert for nearly a decade

  2. Digital Unicorn says:

    I think these events will be the last time we see them in the UK for quite a while. It’s sad that things have come to this but the Monarchy have only themselves to blame – they haven’t done enough to protect the Sussex’s.

    I hope they continue to flip off the UK tabloids by keeping to their plan to work directly with grass roots media organisations – I think this is a great opportunity to showcase upcoming talent that is not in it for the clicks and infamy (cue Monty Python sketch).

    I also can’t wait to see what PR stunts and events the Cambridges do over the next few weeks as they will be making sure that they are visible and accessible while passive aggressively digging at the ‘petulant’ Sussex’s.

    • I love how the Cambridge’s were gifted with a wall of media silence for their vacation last week. This total and complete silence by the RR tells me more than anything that the RR and the royal family are working this together. Meanwhile, Harry can’t even go out for a sub on a different continent without getting papped.

  3. Ali says:

    Two weeks of drama.

    I may need to open another Twitter account because it will be getting ugly.

  4. L84Tea says:

    While I am dreading the nasty coverage that we all know is coming, I can’t wait to see these two working again. Their absence has left a glaring spotlight on how utterly dull the rest of that family is to watch. And I love that they’re packing in tons of events because not only does it show everyone that even in a short time span, the Sussex’s actually hustle, but it’s also like when you go visit relatives you can’t stand and you look for a thousand things to go do so you don’t have to deal with them. Like a rather nice “piss off”.

    I hope they leave Archie at home. None of them deserve to lay eyes on him.

    • RedWeatherTiger says:

      Agreed. I hope Archie stays safely in Canada.

      I also am a petty bitch, so I’d love to see Meghan break every protocol she can. Wear colored nail polish! Wear black! Wear flats! Skip the stupid hat! Go to town.

  5. Erinn says:

    How is that article negative when she’s saying that we have to give her space and some time to think. They said they don’t want her to step down, but if she doesn’t have some kind of concrete plan on how she will serve as patron or whatever then they really could use someone who is available. I really didn’t see this as some sort of attack – the woman is right. They’d love to keep Meghan, but if she doesn’t have the time for it, someone else SHOULD gain the role.

    I think sometimes we’re too quick to assume that every person who says something about M&H is against them. Maybe this woman is – but based on the interview, I think she’s being realistic in terms of giving them some space to make the call on their own while hoping that they would be able to make it work.

    • Leigh says:

      But she has proven that she does have time by keeping in regular contact and continuing to strategize with the National Theatre. Someone should scrutinize Kate’s plans for her patronages seeing as one of her’s recently had to close…

      • pottymouth pup says:

        it’s as if they are, willfully, ignorant of what a patron does for an organization

        (and that you do not have to live local to an organization to be an effective patron)

    • Royalwatcher says:

      But Meghan’s clearly already been doing that according to the Artistic Director’s quotes. It seems like the woman above just isn’t aware of all of this or chooses to make her comments in spite of the AD’s statement. So maybe she should keep her mouth shut if she doesn’t have the full facts. Plus I saw her comments as a bit of CYA. “I like Meghan but she should be doing more…she needs to get more involved but I love her and want her to stay!”

      I’m also not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who’d give quotes to the DailyHeil 🤷🏽‍♀️

      • Erinn says:

        We don’t know the circumstances around it, though. It seems like they reached out to her, she made a pretty non-offensive statement and that’s that. I think that if she DID want to smear Meghan in some way, she’d put in a bit more effort than this, right? And you KNOW the Fail would be jumping on it, and pushing the negative quotes even more. It sounded to me like she was pleased to have Meghan, but was unsure of how easy it would be for her to put time in while out of the country – and seeing as the exit plans ARE ramping up, I don’t think it’s crazy for her to wonder if things will still be possible in the future to the extent that they have been.

        I get that you saw the comments as that, but remove Meghan from the equation and put in just about anyone else. In the context of her answer it truly was not bad. I know that we’re all used to seeing Meghan attacked, but I think sometimes it’s genuinely not meant that way. This seemed like a nothing statement, I guess.

    • Cidy says:

      @Erinn-

      That’s how I read it too. She seemed fairly reasonable and with the added quotes from Leigh above I think this is a pretty reasonable response. They would love for her to stay and if she is not able to, they will find someone else.

      I think because we watched (and keep watching) an ongoing smear against Meg that folks automatically assume the bad, or look for the bad, or some kind of negative tone, when maybe there isnt one. The people in charge and around their patronages are going to have questions and I think thats reasonable because I’m doubtful the Palace is communicating with them.

      • Erinn says:

        I think that’s exactly the thing. There’s so much to be actually mad about though, that I feel like maybe we’re wasting some energy on things that were this benign. I’m not at all trying to make it sound like we shouldn’t care, or that we shouldn’t say something when things are obviously total smear campaigns – but I do think there’s this tendency to attack people who really didn’t intend to do anything wrong, you know? Like this woman is going to be criticized and vilified even though she seemed perfect reasonable, and that’s not really fair either.

        I think we just all need to take a tiny step back when it comes to stories like this one. Call out the reporting because yes, there was some shade from THAT, but maybe we should give at least quotes that seem reasonable given the circumstance a little wiggle room.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        Except…she made it clear they HAVE been in contact, had conversations, AND have a plan in place….so I’m with whoever thought…shade….!

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the comments are dumb because this woman has no say in whether or not Meghan remains patron, but her actual comments are not really anti-Meghan – she’s basically saying if she is still going to do work for the theater, then that’s great, but if she’s not, she should step down, which I don’t think is unreasonable in itself. but it IS unreasonable in light of quotes from the head of the NT saying they are happy with Meghan as patron.

      But, the actual article definitely has a negative spin – Meghan has until Easter to prove her mettle, there are questions about her “suitability” etc. They definitely took these woman’s quotes and are spinning them into more than they are.

      • Leigh says:

        Thanks, Becks. You did a much better job of explaining what I meant.

      • Lorelei says:

        Has Kate ever had to produce “concrete plans” for any of her patronages over the past 9 years, let alone a few weeks? The double standard is so ridiculous.

      • Erinn says:

        Agreed, Becks. I’m not sure on the inner workings of who is running the show with the NT, but at worst it seems like the woman was hopeful, but looking at things realistically in terms of moving forward and maybe speaking when she could have just… not. But I don’t think she should be attacked for what she said, you know? I think coming from a co-owner perspective she does have steak in all of this, so it’s not completely out of line for her to have commented.

        And while I keep seeing the “well what about Kate” comments – this article is about Meghan, but sure – Kate’s not the one leaving the country. Kate has a poor track record (horrible really), which goes without saying. But it does add another level of complexity to the situation when you’re going to live overseas and be in a completely different time zone. I think everyone is a bit unsure of what’s going to be happening when they fully disengage from the royal lifestyle, so you’re going to see some patronages wondering what will go on moving forward, and if they weren’t at least wondering what would happen, I think that would be a concerning thing.

        I think it’s just a time where a lot of change is happening, and people are a little bit unsure of the future. It’s not like M did anything wrong – I just think there are going to be some people naturally wondering if she’ll have the kind of time they were hoping for. Maybe she will, and in a few months this will all blow over and things will be great with the patronages – I don’t doubt Meg will do whatever she can to reassure them.

      • Nic919 says:

        When Meghan is being criticized about her work ethic on patronages then it is fair to bring up Kate and her patronages, one of which is shutting down and many of which she doesn’t even visit annually. Meghan has set up projects for some of the patronages that help them even when she is not physically there, like the smart set project. There is an obvious double standard here that they worry that Meghan may not be able to do the work, when the closed down patronage gets glossed over with a bunch of flimsy excuses trying to exonerate the patron.

      • L4frimaire says:

        She’s entitled to her opinion but it’s not like Meghan has to answer to this person, especially as the head of the NT is saying they are actively working on something and he’s not ready to cut ties with her. What did the Queen do when she was their patron? Also, lots if organizations have non- royal patrons, and despite all the noise, Meghan is still a royal.

    • Amy Too says:

      That’s what I thought, too. The woman’s quotes were supportive of Meghan, said she is a potentially great patron and a role model. She said she’s like to have an idea from Meghan by Easter about what she can do for the patronage, and the DM decided that meant that this woman doesn’t want Meghan in the role indefinitely and thinks she should step down by Easter. That’s not what was said. At all. The DM just spun it into a negative article. So we’ve got a “negative” article that’s full of neutral/positive quotes that the DM are trying to tell us are actually digs at Meghan. This is where reading comprehension is so important for anyone who consumes media. You have to be able to get to the actual facts, in this case the quotes, and ignore the editorializing around it, so that you can make an informed assessment about what’s actually being said.

    • Emmitt says:

      The reason the comments are shady/being taken the wrong way is because the director of the National Theatre has stated Meghan has been in regular contact with the National Theatre. Even if Meghan were still living full time in the UK, she would not be visiting the National Theatre every day, 9-5. Just because Meghan is not in daily contact with them or because this person is not in the daily loop doesn’t mean Meghan’s not doing anything. If this person feels the National Theatre should have a patron who lives full time in the UK, they should say just that. There’s nothing wrong with saying “If Meghan is not going to living in the UK full time or striving to become a UK citizen, she needs to step down as patron ASAP.”

    • notasugarhere says:

      Erinn, see the quotes posted by Leigh above. The National Theatre is happy with her work, she’s an engaged patron, they are actively working together.

      This other person? Sounds like she’s out of the loop, not connected to the National Theatre, and wanted her 15 minutes of fame.

  6. Aurora says:

    The woman interviewed in that article is not affiliated with the National Theater. The head of the National Theater was already interviewed by a more reputable publication and said he was happy with Meghan and excited for the projects they had coming.

  7. GuestOne says:

    The National Theatre director debunked idea they were unhappy with Meghan last week in an interview. said they are happy with her as patron, feel it would be business as usual& sounds like they have a project coming soon. Interested to see what she does with them.

    Also sure I’ve read that some royals haven’t visited their patronage’s in years but of course where Meghan is concerned suddenly a patron has to be accessible weekly.

    • Belli says:

      You’re right. If Meghan does visit the NT while she’s in England (I suspect she will), that’ll mean she’s visited them twice in 3 months. That’s far more than some other royals visit their own patronages.

    • Weekly? The press bang on like she owes each of them a 24/7, in-the-office work commitment. The double standard is disgusting between what is demanded of Meghan and not expected in the other royals. The press write this narrative like she is supposed to be an active, fully engaged CEO for every single one of her patronage’s. Usually, these patronage’s are lucky if a royal patron simply puts in an appearance for a brief walk-about or a canned 2 minute speech. When this happens the patron fawns all over them while the press takes pretty pictures and does some serious ass kissing to make everyone feel good they got to breath the same air as a royal being for 30 minutes annually (if that).

  8. Brit says:

    The director of the National Theater already spoke to the Telegraph and said Meghan would continue to be their Patron and they’re excited about the future. I suspect that many are jealous and want that position for themselves. The faster Harry and Meghan get away from that god awful press the better because the press are going to be annoying. That media are trying to hold on to them for dear life and the closer it gets to March 31st, we might see more nastiness or sadness aka Emily Andrews twitter acknowledgements. Good for them for getting about from Thomas Markle 2.0 aka the British press.

  9. Becks1 says:

    Man, these next few weeks are going to be rough for the sussexes in the press. I’m sure they are prepared for that though. And agree with @DU up above that we are going to see some scrambling by the Cambridges.

    • PrincessK says:

      Yes, it is going to be tough, but l am sure that they are prepared. I will be in the crowds at Westminster Abbey, and cheer them on.

  10. Royalwatcher says:

    Funny how none of Kate’s charities never come out and say this about her. And she’s continuing to live in England!! I’m sure she’s got several charities that’s she’s only had a meeting or two with. Funny how all the criticism (charities speaking out against their royal patrons) is saved for Meghan instead of Kate who’s so bad for her charities they’re going out of business!!

    Even with the head guy releasing a statement recently, the National Theatre people sure do love to kick out at Meghan!! None of her other charities have said a negative word about her and this is the third(?) time the NT has gotten some digs in at her. I’m sure she’s already been in touch with them about her plans and to talk about how she intends to work with them so I really wish they’d keep their comments to themselves.

    I’m not surprised she has a bunch of meetings and private engagements planned. It’s clear that’s who Meghan is. In her own words, she’s a woman who works!

  11. KellyRyan says:

    The Queenie, “gifted the honor.” Underlying behavior, I did this for you. You owe me, and the BRF. Good to see both will be busy and have a minimum amount of contact with, “the family.”

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      And I bet a nickel (I’ll go as high as a quarter!!) that Meghan will make short trips over, pack in a lot of work, and leave and we won’t know anything about anything till she’s home safe. Then we’ll hear about it and get pictures. I hope they somehow manage to escape the RR’;s 100% (tho’ I realize it’s unlikely, considering some of the events are public).

      • Jaded says:

        Yup – she’s really good at stealth visits and because she manages to get on a plane in Victoria without being harassed she’ll pop up here and there in the UK, do her work and come back to her peaceful life on Vancouver Island.

  12. Cidy says:

    I dont think the comments she said were bad or smearing. I think she sounded fairly reasonable in just saying “we would love to keep her but if we cant due to circumstance we will be fine with someone else.” – I dont think this is an inflammatory comment or statement or interview. I think we can get a little testy about articles written about Meghan because we have watched an ongoing true smear campaign against her and that makes folks seek out the tone, or the smear or the negative slant where maybe there isnt one. With the added commentary above it sounds like the patronage is just waiting for clarification and movement which is not unreasonable or negative on Meg. Who I’m sure is still going to work with them. I dont believe this to be smearing, that’s not the tone I got but I can see how maybe some folks did.

    That having been said one of Kate’s whole @ss patronages closed and we ain’t heard whistles about that..

  13. Sojaschnitzel says:

    I love love love the colour combination on her in the last picture. It makes me hungry for sweets, but still.

  14. Jen says:

    I think they’re packing their schedule to make sure they don’t have time for visiting the family…. I don’t blame them. And maybe also as a little “See how much WE actually work when we’re working royals?”

  15. TeamAwesome says:

    Photographer Chris Jackson posted an Invictus Games throwback on his Instagram with a who’s ready for Invictus caption and most of the comments were anti-Sussex. “Ooh, they disrespected my Queenie, so I know I won’t be watching!” No one cares about the good, the real measurable results.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      it will be interesting to see if Jackson is allowed to cover the games considering he’s so far up the Cambridges asses am sure he can photograph their breakfast. He’s also a regular on the Royal Rota.

    • GM says:

      He’s had to disable comments for every single post that mentions Harry and Meghan. It’s incredibly disgusting and sad at how much hate they get.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @GM In a town not too far from me, yobs broke into a garden, destroyed some beehives and killed all the bees.
        It made me weep.
        I feel the same when I think of what Meghan has had to endure – the senseless, mindless, numbing, weepworthiness of it.

  16. H says:

    Apparently previous comment deleted.

    I’ve been here for at least five years, can’t stand the BRF. I haven’t watched a royal event since Diana’s funeral. I’ve disliked Queen Elizabeth since then with her actions after Diana died.

    However, CB calls out the racism and bias which seemingly runs through the British press about Harry and Meghan. I’m all for calling out racists and will continue reading these stories. Don’t like, don’t click. I HATE the Kardashians, so I don’t read those stories.

    • Bubs says:

      Exactly H! I saw that comment too and was about to respond to the individual (a certain “Seethe”) before it was (rightly) deleted! If he/she thinks M and H are ‘ridiculous’, then he/she ought to crawl back to the DailyFail where they most likely came from. M&H are constantly vilified in the press; there’s no need to add to the insults. There really isn’t any cogent reason for the way they are treated except that they dared to be excellent individuals and challenge the norm…and by so doing, they ruffled many feathers. I pray for them constantly because I see a clear plan to do damage to what they represent as people and turn the world against them. I’m from Nigeria, I’ve never met M and H, but I know good when I see it. Their stars shine so brightly and they inspire countless lives on a daily basis. I’m in awe when I see strangers defending them vocally on Twitter (shout out to the #sussexsquad). There’s a lot of hate but there’s also a great army of people who see through the media bullshit! They’re not perfect, but they’re good people trying to make a difference. Nelson Mandela would have loved Meghan…same as Mother Theresa. They’re good people! They get it wrong sometimes, but who doesn’t? I think we owe it to humanity to cheer on those doing genuine good in a world filled with so much pain and suffering. God bless you Harry and Meghan. Keep shining your light. Much love from Nigeria.
      PS: I don’t hate the Kardashians though…I think ‘hate’ is a really strong word…I’m just not interested in their lives…lol.

      • bamaborn says:

        @Bubs…love your comment! More people can see the good in these two young people, than the ones who cannot. If only the world had more like them.*sigh*

  17. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I took the quote as meaning they like having her as patron but would rightly like someone else if she isn’t up to the job in the long run. But I also have read the NT director’s response and feel like this woman is being a bit whiney for no reason. Meghan is said to be fully engaged and has plans for them, so all appears to be good on that front.

    It’s going to be an interesting couple of weeks with M&H back in the UK.

  18. KellyRyan says:

    My family departed England in 1632 during the Great Migration, settling in Massachusetts, expanding along the east coast. They left due to religious and political suppression. Imagine the relief H&M feel not harnessed to an anvil, dragging it everywhere. Freedom to choose where you live, who you engage with, etc. The BRF is a dead institution, and they’ll be the last to know.

  19. RoyalBlue says:

    Ugh what nasty comments by the producer. She should have until Easter to prove her mettle? And questions remain over her suitability for the job. Are other members of the family held to the same litmus test too? Have they assessed everyone’s suitability for the job.

    And the mere mention of the word Megxit gives me pause.

    I am also excited and looking forward to those 12 days and then, on to March 31!

  20. L4frimaire says:

    I really feel for Meghan on this trip. There really is a hysteria being whipped up over there against her. I don’t watch the news over there, but there was some person in one of the morning shows going off on her and dragging her, going on about Archies birth, that the host actually had to step in and walk it back, because it was getting too vicious. This was a segment about the statement and use of the word royal. I really don’t think Britain is a safe place at all for her to be. They’ll need crazy level of security, which will be blamed on them, and there will be round the clock national coverage. If they smile, they’re too smug, if they don’t, they’re miserable. People talk about Harry’s mental health, but I seriously think she must be going through some things behind the scenes. And the Brits are enjoying this, tearing her apart. They really are. This is the ultimate distraction from the fact so far their post Brexit actions are landing like a lead balloon, their PM Boris has been MIA, and they’re not exactly hitting the ground running. I really hope the Sussexes get through this visit with grace and their heads held high, and do what they have to do, and do it well. The world will be watching.

    • Tessa says:

      Some of the horrid comments about her in the DM refer to her as a Sociopath. Disgusting

      • Bubs says:

        Please stop reading the daily whatever…I know it hurts to see the headlines about PH and MM but please, let’s not add money into the purses of these evil people by giving them our clicks! Let’s starve them!
        CB can do the reading for us and break it down if we must refer to the Fail at all! The (online) media is only as powerful as its readers. Less clicks, less money!

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Bubs

        Exactly. Each click on any articles of theirs is literally a vote for them and one against Meghan/Harry. It’s that simple.

      • Marie says:

        I agree Bubs. If you click on their articles you are paying them to trash Harry and Meghan. I also will never understand why someone wants to read the DM comments. They are hateful so why read them?

      • PrincessK says:

        I only look at the pics in the Fail. But on Sussex articles l go straight to worst rated to read the pro Sussex comments and give them all green arrows.

  21. rawiya says:

    I don’t understand the part in the article about “royal patron barely doing anything for her patronage for the foreseeable future.” None of the Queen’s or Kate’s patronages complain, so why should Meghan’s?

    Kate recently took over a patronage from the Queen, and I think the Queen last visited in the late-90s/early-00s. Okay, the Queen has hundreds of patronages, so let’s use another example. Kate went nearly 5 years between her visits with EACH. One of her very first patronages is closing due to lack of funds, and all they needed was £50K for one year’s operating expenses (sure, they’d have to find more money, but they would have had another year, at least.)

    Meghan has shown with Smart Works and the Hubb that she gets involved and actually does things. Because of her (yes, I’m giving her credit) Luminary Bakery and Smart Works are joining forces over the summer. There’s no doubt that she would work with the National Theatre on a great ~thing~ while in Canada and then come over to launch it/see it.

  22. AMM says:

    I cant wait for this to all be over. Come this summer, the Sussexs will officially be free (for 12 months at least) and the lawsuits should have results. Once the smoke clears for them, the DM and Sun are going to be left with reporting second hand news off the Sussex instagram and glowing stories about the Cambridges. The DM posted yet another “Kate never puts a foot wrong” article yesterday and it managed all of 60 comments. I suspect they will have to find a new royal to complain about for clicks, and the rest of the RF better be prepared.

  23. AMM says:

    Also, is it odd that the Cambridges will do their Ireland tour during the Sussexs return to the UK or is it just business as usual?

    • Le4Frimaire says:

      It’s probably a good thing the Cambs will be in Ireland, since the royal rota will have to ( hopefully) cover them and it will be too tense with them and the Sussexes around each other. Although as someone married to an Irishman, they seriously can go kick rocks in Connaught. Hope Brexit leads to Irish unification.

  24. Helen says:

    there’s no reason meghan should have to show up to the U.K. she owes them nothing.

  25. Jaded says:

    I have a feeling William is going to be leaking to the press and ROTA like a whiny little brat while Harry & Meghan are showing the Cambridges up by actually WORKING while they’re in the UK. I anticipate seeing some truly ugly articles emerging about the Sussexes because that’s William’s MO. He’s too stupid, petty and immature to try and make any kind of amends, even if it’s just for optics, and he doesn’t seem to understand that when you try to ruin someone for revenge, spite and attention, it always comes at a cost.

  26. Margetta says:

    People are JUST AS on their asses now (if not more so) than before they announced they were leaving. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Turns out it makes no functional difference at all that they decided to be private citizens. It’s crazy to me. They left for a private life, some privacy, and less glaring and HARSH spotlight constantly shining on them and for the end of the never-ending criticism. Literally nothing has changed. They are being just as scrutinized, just as criticized, and people people still act like that own them (maybe even more so now). It’s like they are public property owned by everyone in the world and that’s just the way it will be. No matter what they do, where they go, or how they live. I feel for them. I really do.

    • Le4Frimaire says:

      Yeah the press is angry and vicious, kind of like a dangerous animal after it’s wounded, but not dead yet. Once they are out, they really won’t be the rota’s, or even the Brits concern. We’ll see them during Invictus, and here and there, but that’s their own time and own dime. Not that they’ll ever be forgiven for this, so hope they make some big moves. I hope in a years time, some of this frenzy will subside ( ha! but optimism) and they can become a boring, high-level,two-career family expecting another kid .

  27. Cosmo says:

    Too bad Meghan has to go at all. I’m afraid for her safety and what attacks the royals and the british media are going to do.

  28. Lisa says:

    No doubt they will want to pack everything into the time they spend in the UK so they can head back out and not have to do it again for a while.

    • Universe says:

      I just have a nasty feeling they will pay crowds to boo her.
      They are sick, twisted , and will stop and nothing to try and destroy and humiliate her.

      • PrincessK says:

        This is why Sussex fans need to mobilise in the U.K. There has been a lot of criticism that people in the UK who have experienced racism are not speaking out enough for Meghan. If l can l always go out to support the Sussexes.

  29. 10KTurtle says:

    Yay! Instead of being held hostage by the BRF she will be out showing her work and the press will have to [begrudgingly] publish the good results!

  30. Carolind says:

    Yeah, some British people are horrid but don’t tar us all with the same brush. Some are good. I am Scottish and the vast majority of younger people especially not interested in the Royal Family. I have a soft spot for Charles and Anne – and Camilla. William and Harry and spouses have shown little interest in Scotland in recent years.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That’s your takeaway? Meghan suffers three years worth of full-on racist attacks, but she didn’t do enough for Scotland so?