DM: Prince Harry & Meghan ‘are set to lose all their remaining patronages’

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton

The British commentary class and royal reporters were already FUMING about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s pregnancy announcement. Then about 24 hours later, we learned that Harry and Meghan will do a sit-down interview with Oprah for American network television (CBS). The British papers are in full meltdown mode. I’m going to keep saying this because it’s true (and I saw Omid Scobie say the same thing last night): this is a repeat of the Finding Freedom controversy. The British media went into a full-throttle hysteria before they even got their hands on the book, and when FF was finally published, it really didn’t reveal all that much. It will be the same with the Oprah interview – I’m sure we’ll get dozens of stories before and after the interview, but it’s not like Meghan or Harry will sit there and say “the Queen is petty AF and the institution is built on racism and colonialism” (where’s the lie though). Anyway, batsh-t crazy royal reporters are gonna be batsh-t crazy. Here’s Emily Andrews Rebecca English at the Daily Mail:

Liz’s big punishment: Harry and Meghan are set to lose all their remaining royal patronages, the Daily Mail can reveal today. It is understood the Queen is to ask them to relinquish their links with any organisations passed down through the Royal Family. Her 36-year-old grandson would be stripped of his three remaining honorary military titles and, potentially, his patronages with the Rugby Football Union, Rugby Football League and the London Marathon. Meghan would have to step down as patron of the National Theatre, unless she can negotiate another position with them. When she was handed the role in 2019, it was seen as a major gesture of support and affection because the Queen had been patron of the London institution for 45 years. One grey area is expected to be the couple’s links with the Commonwealth, but sources suggested that these are likely to go as well.

They really thought Meghan would never use her voice: One source described the interview as ‘one of the most inevitable and, sadly, predictable consequences’ of the ‘Megxit’ saga. The decision to take part in the interview risks angering – and embarrassing – the Royal Family. It could also widen the divisions between Harry and his brother, Prince William, and William’s wife, the Duchess of Cambridge. Buckingham Palace declined to comment last night about the interview, which will be aired six weeks before the Queen’s 95th birthday and in advance of celebrations for Prince Philip’s 100th.

A coldness from the palace: A royal source said that as the couple were no longer working royals, any decisions taken with regard to ‘media commitments are matters for them’. They were ‘under no obligation’ to inform the Royal Household of their plans. The interview was announced by CBS in a press release. While there was no angry reaction from the palace – it has taken great pains not to get into a public slanging match with the Sussexes – the coldness of the response was evident. The decision to strip the couple of their last remaining royal titles is not being done as a reaction to the interview.

The “12 month review” threats are back: It is being perceived that the televised chat was agreed because the couple could ‘see the direction of travel’ of future royal roles. Sources have stressed that a 12-month review of their new status was not put into place last year with a renegotiation of terms in mind, but as a safety net in case they moved abroad ‘and didn’t get a dime in the bank’. It is not clear when an announcement on the patronages will be made but the Mail understands that it could even be earlier than March 31, when the couple’s review period concludes.

LOL, they’re so mad: One source told the Mail that it was hoped that the interview with Miss Winfrey would provide the couple with the chance to ‘get whatever it is they want to say off their chests and move on’. Another added: ‘The interview has clearly come about because there is an understanding [with Harry and Meghan] that all remaining formal links with organisations will cease to exist.’

[From The Daily Mail]

It feels like the palaces just keep setting themselves up for losses, right? Meghan and Harry left that moldy institution, made some blockbuster deals, put money in the bank, got pregnant with their Montecito Baby, won their lawsuits against the British tabloids and they’re free to use their voices and tell their story. And the palace is like “we’re going to punish you, you’re going to be so sorry, remember the 12-month review!!” Nevermind that the last time we heard about that fakakta review, Harry was ghosting his grandma and the courtiers admitted that there wasn’t much they could actually do besides strip a veteran of war of his military honors.

172496PCN_HarryMeghan012

Royal Ascot, Portrait of TRH Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and TRH Meghan the Duchess of Sussex in front of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

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

136 Responses to “DM: Prince Harry & Meghan ‘are set to lose all their remaining patronages’”

  1. Sofia says:

    I mean even if the patronages are taken away, there’s nothing stopping the organisations themselves from getting the Sussexes back through just a “regular” patron. I’m sure they’ll face “royal pressure” not to however.

    Lots of celebs in the UK are patrons to charities. Rose Cholmondeley and Ed Sheeran are patrons of EACH and they’re not royal.

    • Smices says:

      Actually I think that already happened when they dropped HRH. Most of their patronage’s went from calling them royal patrons to just patrons. So there’s not much to change.

      • My Two Cents says:

        Meghan’s SmartWorks and the animal shelter won’t drop her! They are very happy to work with her.

      • GraceB says:

        Charities will always want patrons and the higher profile the better. It might be a loss to them to not be able to use the term ‘royal’ but it doesn’t prevent the charities from keeping them on. I guess the only flip side might be if they can get another royal patron and then are forced to make a choice but I can’t imagine which royal would step in.

        One thing which frustrates me with this is that I feel like Harry & Meghan are still giving power to the term ‘royal’ and titles in general. It’s often discussed on here about how the monarchy is a stuffy, outdated institution and so are the titles that go with it. I would love it so much if they just dropped the royal and and dukedom too. It would send a message that titles are an outdated thing and don’t have a place in their mind. If that ends up being taken from them, it feels rather undignified.

      • BabsORIG says:

        I feel like people asking or wishing Harry and Meghan to drop their titles lack all the information in regards to these titles etc. Dropping these titles is not as clear cut as you think. Plus, what is your suggestion in regards to Harry being a prince? Even if he drops the dukedom and the HRH, Harry is a blood prince and will ALWAYS be prince Harry titles or no titles and there is absolutely nothing he can do about it; it wasn’t a choice he made to be born in the BRF. Meghan too, as long as she is married to prince Harry, she will always be Princess Henry titles or no titles.
        And what about their children? What if the kids decide some day that they want their titles and al that goes with that stuff? What right do the adult Sussexes have to strip themselves of these titles and in the process strip their children who haven’t made that choice that they don’t want the titles?

      • GraceB says:

        @BabsORIG Even Prince is a title. An accident of birth, the same as many royals besides those who married in. That’s the whole point. I don’t want to see them stripped of their titles. They’re being stripped of just about everything else and I think it’s just constant insult and humiliation but if we are talking about how outdated the institution is, then being born or marrying into a title is equally as redundant.

        We don’t even know how they feel about their titles. Maybe they like them, maybe they don’t. I’m just following the general consensus on here, which seems to be that they view the monarchy as an outdated and redundant institution which doesn’t represent anything positive.

        If there’s any chance that they could remove any of the titles, I’d rather see the Sussex’s say ‘thanks but no thanks’ before the Windsors had a chance to take away that option.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There’s also a difference between orgs they chose to help themselves (Hubb, Mayhew, SmartWorks) and patronages ‘bestowed’ by the Queen (Royal Theatre). Queen cannot remove patronages she didn’t ‘bestow’.

      • Bex says:

        She also can’t “take” them back either. She can ask that they “step down”, like Andrew reluctantly did, but that was because he gave that trainwreck interview in Nov 2019, and ALL of his patronages were cuting ties post haste.

        As far as I can tell, Harry and Meghan’s patronages are highly supportive of them, and make a point to show they stand with them. How would the Queen justify it? All of her children (and their spouses) and grandchildren have granted interviews at some point over the 60+ years that she’s been on the throne.

        I’m telling you, if she tries it, THAT will be bad PR for that family, not the Sussexes because it will again confirm just how hostile that family is.

  2. Myra says:

    Why would it widen the gulf with William and Kate only? What are they afraid might come out? I hope the royal reporters do behave like last year and drip-feed us all their horrible behaviours.

    • Betsy says:

      Yeah, that’s a weird one. It’s like William’s vendetta against his brother is the driving force behind much of the cruelty to Meghan and Harry or something.

    • Becks1 says:

      The RRs keep telling on themselves, dont they? or on the real story at any rate. William’s behavior behind the scenes (and Kate’s) must have been really deplorable. And it makes sense that the family would protect him and not want the truth to come out, because so many people are “okay” with Charles as king bc he will have a shorter reign and then they’ll get William as king. The royal family’s image needs William as the golden boy, as Diana’s first born, the hands on father trying to undo the mistakes of his parents – and I think that’s one of the real fears about Harry and Meghan, that they could destroy that image by telling the truth.

      (of course it doesnt matter who is “okay” with Charles as king because he’s next in line and that’s how this whole thing works, but the PR around it etc.)

      • Yvette says:

        @Becks1 … I’ve always thought that there was more to Harry’s animosity toward William for his behavior towards Meghan. I’ve never bought the ‘Harry had a temper tantrum because his big brother tried to give him advice to slow down with this girl’ nonsense.

        I think William has gone after Meghan verbally and she stood up to him (probably), giving him as good as she got. I also think William said something very, very bad to Meghan in Harry’s presence and Harry just couldn’t forgive him for it or just couldn’t believe that his brother had that ugliness in him. You could just see in the way William looked at Meghan that he disliked her, which belies the excuse of him thinking Harry moved too fast. And wherever William goes, Kate follows.

        But even if William’s attitude was simply an older brother’s mistrust of a new girl and looking out for his brother, wouldn’t those reservations have disappeared once William witnessed how happy Meghan made Harry and how loved up they are with each other?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Yvette – I agree, and I never bought that the source of their rift was William telling Harry to slow down. That may have been one of the final straws, but not the source.

        Tom Bradby said – at the time of Sussexit – that “things were said that could not be unsaid” and he alluded to some other really ugly messy behind the scenes behavior, so I can see it being more that William attacked Meghan verbally and Harry stood up for her. (or heck, Meghan stood up for herself.)

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – Did not Tom Bradby (or was it Scobie) express that their was a very ugly incident with a Senior Royal that was not Andrew?

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        From what RR’s and other journo’s have let slip William allegedly said some nasty shit to Harry and about Meghan. Apparently he went there around the rumours of Harry’s paternity amongst other things.

        What is becoming clear is that both Cambridges interfered in the Sussex relationship for their own ends and that the Cambridges drove them out. The chickens are coming home to roost for the whole RF.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay – a lot of it is running together at this point, but Keir Simmons is the one who allegedly told someone that there is a really big story involving senior royals that cannot be discussed due to legal reasons, and that it does not involve the Sussexes or Andrew. At the time my guess was something really shady financially, but now I’m wondering if its something like an illegitimate child – that would explain the total silence because the press would not be allowed to “out” the child maybe?

        Bradby is the one who said that things were said that could not be unsaid (as I mentioned above) and I also think he is the one who said that if the full truth came out, people would side with Harry and Meghan. I think Bradby is also the one who said that the Sussexes dont have any issue with the Queen, Phillip or Charles and get along with them. These are all very vague statements but its enough to really make you think that William is a very toxic person behind the scenes.

      • HeyJude says:

        @Becks1 I think you’re correct, the more hysterical these people get the more I’m thinking back to William’s philandering and wondering if he pulled a Prince Albert and knocked a women up and now there’s an illegitimate child of William’s out there.

        Which is why the complete hysteria over the Rose saga so people wouldn’t look to uncover more girlfriends, the push to make William look like God’s gift to monarchy, the panic to cover for any remotely critical word towards him, etc.

        The family’s covering for him not just because he’ll be king, but obviously Charles has zero room to talk and taught his son to cheat, and Prince Philip himself has been rumored to have a spare child or two. So no one can sit there and say their hands are clean in teaching William that such things are okay and accepted. Hell, William probably threatened if he’s revealed he’ll send the Meddletons out to the press to leak and state he’s been taught nothing but cheating from the Queen, Prince, and his parents and drag everyone down with him.

        Either that or William got himself involved in a Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts situation. Maybe at Uncle Gary’s or Peppa’s in-laws island?

        But something has gone on that’s turned a bad personality he had from the start into the total monster we see now.

      • NiqGee says:

        @Becks1 – It would also explain why Harry was determined to ensure that his lifestyle and comfort of his family was not dependent on the generosity of William and Catherine. Better to step out on his own now, while he has his grandmother and father as a safety net, than be forced to do so later after they are gone and he has no other options. William doesn’t strike me as very charitable.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Kate’s strange visit to the costume area at the Royal Opera House January 2019? Seemed like a bid to get the Royal Theatre, ROH, or English National Ballet patronage from the Queen. The first attempt, leaking the secret photos of their daughter visiting a Nutcracker practice a month earlier didn’t work. These vain attempts failed and the Queen handed the Theatre patronage to Meghan.

      I think Kate is still really pushing for the National Ballet one, which has been taken from Andrew. She wants Diana’s old patronages, wants to associate their daughter as the *only Diana granddaughter* *the child who loves ballet just like Diana*. So if Meghan is removed at National Theatre patron, I see Kate wanting all three of those handed to her.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        The Petty Part of me *reallllllly* wants this new baby to be a girl…or better, TWIN girls… just to stick it to Willileaks and Top Exhausted CEO, the Kingmaker. 🤞🏻🙏🏻

      • BabsORIG says:

        @OGJan, from your prayers to God’s decision making desk. I am like, literally praying for 3 identical redhead girls. :)

      • Becks1 says:

        I really hope its a girl too because you know it will tick off Kate, lol. That’s petty I know and obviously Harry and Meghan will love a boy or girl – but sometimes I let my petty side shine through.

        and @Nota – I agree, the costume visit was SUPER weird. Was that the one where we were told “Kate is really interested in textiles?” She was definitely aiming for one of the theater patronages and I think the Queen knew it.

        The queen is petty and controlling and I have no love for her after how she has handled the Sussex drama, but I definitely get the vibe that she has NO use for Kate and does not hesitate to let her know that. (remember the story a month ago about how Kate and the Queen talk regularly?. LMAO no.)

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “She wants Diana’s old patronages, wants to associate their daughter as the *only Diana granddaughter”

        @Nota – Which is really strange to me because I see more Anne in Charlotte than Diana.

        @Becks1 – The only interest QEII has in Kate is to do what is necessary to keep the Trainbridge marriage in tact.

        @all CBers – For some strange reason, I think the new Sussex Baby will be another Prince.

      • Anners says:

        As a member of a Commonwealth country, personally I’m hoping that as soon as Queen Petty dies we exeunt stage left. I don’t want Charles or PWT on my money. Also, the Governor General position (ceremonial representative of the crown) has caused nothing but headaches for the past few years. It’s time for this sad, broken, colonialist pagentry to end. They can pay their own damn way.

      • Elizabeth Phillips says:

        I want 3 girls – a blonde who looks like Diana and becomes a Pulitzer-winning biographer, a redhead who looks like Harry and becomes prima ballerina assoluta, and a brunette who looks like Meghan and becomes a great singer/actress and EGOT.

    • BabsORIG says:

      And why is Harry the one always expected to do the work, do the heavy lifting to mend this relationship between the brothers? What is William doing to narrow and bridge this gap?

    • Nic919 says:

      I agree that there is no reason to think that an interview with Oprah would affect his relationship with William and Kate unless they did something that could be exposed. They could easily stick to the racist coverage by the media and not include any family members as part of the discussion. So why does the British media keep getting so worried about a rift with William and Kate and not Charles or the Queen?

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        I think if the truth of what the Cambridges did came out and their marriage fell apart I think William would be under pressure to walk away from the throne. I think whatever is being hidden is really really bad, its been hinted at several times.

        Actively leaking negative stories to the press about a bi-racial woman is not something the Cambridges could ever recover from. If the receipts were ever made public, it would either be the Monarchy or the Cambridges – Chuck would pick the throne and the Cambridges would have to walk away from the succession.

  3. Annalise says:

    While I’m sure H&M will be sad to lose their patronages, they know they can still do PLENTY of good with or without the palace.
    IMO I think the fewer ties they have to the RF, and the fewer things the RF can lord over them, the better. They need to be COMPLETELY free to act as they see fit.

    • STRIPE says:

      Yeah I agree. Every time they get “punished” I just shrug. At this point they do not need the RF for anything at all. If I were them I would give up all of their titles (Duke/Dutch, HRH..all of it) They don’t need them and it’s just a final tie to that family.

      It sucks they are taking away Harry’s honorary military titles, but even that, in the grand scheme of things, won’t impact his ability to serve active military and veterans. He still has Invictus Games and can do whatever else he wants.

      They can help whatever cause or charity they want. Being a “patron” is just a title that means nothing.

  4. Seraphina says:

    So they punish the couple and the organizations they patron. Because, let’s be honest, if I was their patronages I would be giddy with excitement that THIS couple (the hard working, charismatic and globally popular) were helping me raise money. At every turn The Firm comes out looking not only petty but archaic as hell.

    • Emmy Rae says:

      It definitely seems like this has things reversed as far as who is losing if Meghan and Harry are not patrons. Or is there some royal fiction that the patronages are actually for the benefit of the royals, like someone adopting a rescue (“really the dog saved me”)?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “So they punish the couple and the organizations they patron”

      QEII needs tread very carefully in removing the Sussexes from their Commonwealth roles. If anything could come back and bite her Royal Posterior long-term, it is messing with the Commonwealth of Nations.

    • MsIam says:

      Wouldn’t removing the patronages mean there would be even fewer reasons for the Sussexes to come back to Shutter Island? Meaning even less need for press coverage with no public appearances? The dummies at the Rota seem intent on working themselves out of jobs don’t they? Going to be a long wait for the Cambridge kids to grow up, lol. If the Sussexes are ” stripped” watch the next big gossip fest to be the status of the Cambridge marriage, its only a matter of time. I bet Will and Kate will love that.

  5. Snuffles says:

    I hope the charities continue to work with them anyways. We all know they want to.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      What if QEII attempts to remove the Sussexes from their roles with The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth not only says “NO” but “Hell NO!”?

  6. Faye says:

    These people are ridiculous. Harry and Meghan can still work with any organization if that organization chooses without it being a “patronage ” from the royal family.

    As for the interview. I dont see MhH going after the RF, but the British press is going to be hit hard imo. As they should be.

  7. Kate says:

    These people continue to cut off their nose to spite their face.

  8. SShehheh says:

    Wow Andrew’s interview didn’t get this much pearl clutching. Just goes to show….

    • Amy Bee says:

      The Royal Family approved of Andrew doing his interview and they thought it went very well. It was the public’s response to it that made them realise that it was a disaster and a mistake to do it.

  9. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    I hope they have done a glorious tell all and dropped PWT and Buttons right in it. I imagine their charities will welcome them back with open arms, regardless of whether the Palace continues to be petty, draconian and small-minded in stripping them away. I will watch with interest re: what happens to their Commonwealth titles. To remove the first woman of colour from a commonwealths of nations whose identity is largely composed of colour could cause breakaway movements.
    And it would be all Old Brenda’s fault.

    • Harper says:

      I expect Oprah to roll the clip of William “scarfing” Meghan coming out of church on Christmas. Maybe throw in that soundbite regarding Archie’s imminent arrival, “I already have a nephew.” And of course, Can’t's Commonwealth Service snub in slo-mo. Then point out that Will’s own employees sided with the Fail over Meghan’s lawsuit. There is a lot on the record to use.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ““I already have a nephew.”

        Who said that???

      • whateveryousay says:

        Who said that nephew line?

        I doubt that Oprah is going to get into that beyond that besides Meghan being able to refute all that DM nonsense that they published about her. I mean the latest thing was used against her as a way to say see Meghan did something in order to hurt Kate (BC story) and when you look at it, you see how on the face of it it was 100 percent stupid and made no sense at all.

      • February-Pisces says:

        @btb when Willie and keen were on a walk waving at peasants, one peasant asked Willie if he was excited about becoming an uncle. Instead of saying “yes I am” he opted for “we already have a nephew”.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Referring to Pippa’s son????

    • Gabby says:

      “To remove the first woman of colour from a commonwealths of nations whose identity is largely composed of colour could cause breakaway movements.” – Yes, yes and Yes! I actually hope this happens.

  10. Anna says:

    Hold on won’t that mean Harry would lose the Invictus game?

  11. Snuffles says:

    Serious question – what value does having a royal patron really have these days? Wasn’t there an expose last year that it wasn’t worth anything. That the royals can’t even bring decent publicity anymore and they barely do anything for the organizations except the occasional photo op. Many have gone under despite having a royal patron.

    Are they entitled to some royal money if they have a royal patron? Do they get any funding? Is there anything they are in danger of losing if they go against the Queen?

    Because, in today’s climate, the charities should push back and work with whoever they want to work with.

    • SarahCS says:

      As I understand it (feel free to correct if there are better informed commenters out there), for most of them it’s predominantly about publicity and a hint of extra legitimacy so the organisation has the royal seal of approval (like all the businesses who officially supply the BRF and get to put the seal on their products). Britain has an ingrained sense of royalty being a big deal so anything associated with royalty is impressive. That’s starting to fade but it’s how most of us were brought up without even thinking about it.

      Then the royals can do events for their patronages to draw attention (and in theory funds) to them. Plus it’s a well done/thank you for the people involved and doing the good work which historically people have appreciated.

      Bit different for sports but that’s more about representing the country. Figurehead and all that.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think everything you said is the “theory” behind royal patronages and the value of having a royal patron, but that’s not the reality anymore. (There is also a different between having a royal patron and a royal warrant I think.)

        The royals who actually work have so many patronages that its not really any value – yes it may sound more prestigious to have the Prince of Wales as your royal patron, but if he shows up once every two or three years, what value is that really? And the royals who work less (cough Cambridges cough) – they have fewer patronages and STILL dont show up on a regular basis.

        There is no specific funding tied to having a royal patronage, and the expose from last year showed that charities with royal patrons do not raise any more money than charities without royal patrons

      • BayTampaBay says:

        A Royal Patron in like a seal of approval and legitimacy which is lends credence sorta like the “Good Housekeeping Seal” or a 4-Star rating from the American Better Business Bureau.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are different types of ‘royal patron’. Some of them are simply related to bread-and-butter engagements. Royal patron of the appeal to replace such and such church steeple. When Anne is listed as ‘royal patron’ of hundreds of things, they are often these little ‘patronages’.

        There are fewer big ‘royal patron of’ things. For those, you hope having a royal helps. In the case of W&K, they constantly prove having them as a royal patron doesn’t help at all.

    • Lena says:

      I guess part of it is also just a way to thank the people working for them. If you are small charity with an active royal patron there’s decent chance you can meet them and for some people that’s still exciting and makes them feel like their hard work is appreciated.

  12. Lauren says:

    Honestly it would just hurt the patronages. This is not a good look for BP at all.

    • Becks1 says:

      This is where I think its almost kind of funny, because the gold standard advisors are so worthless. Taking the royal patronages from them just makes the royal family look so much worse, and I think for most of the world, it would validate their decision to leave.

      • molly says:

        SO much worse! Given everything we’ve seen from Harry and Meghan in the last year, no way they allow the RF to pin the decision to drop the patronages on them. If they even try to claim it as some “mutual decision to part ways”, I expect an immediate “no Ellen, that’s not true” Dakota Johnson response. The Sussexes are done sharing blame for decisions they don’t get to make.

    • PEARL GREY says:

      The BRF only care about patronages as far as using them for PR to fool the public into thinking they actually want to use their immense privilege for good. They don’t care if the charities and the people they help will suffer. If they did, they wouldn’t be using threats to punish Harry and Meghan when they have proven to be the only two who can really generate publicity and donations with their involvement. William only wants to drink pints and Kate can’t even remember to visit every 8 years.

  13. LaraK says:

    The 12-month review makes me laugh every time. It’s clear H&M don’t give a flying crap about it, yet the RF and their mouthpieces keep wielding it as some sort of weapon.

    The Brit twits (RF, courtiers, press) really thought H &M we’re going to fail! And they can’t do a darn thing about any of it! This is truly hilarious.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Daily Fail is heavily pushing the narrative that the “One-Year Review” was never cancelled and will take place.

      • Chris. says:

        It looks like an other fake story from the Daily Fail. It is more like the Fail personal wish to see them stripped from everything. I don’t believe it. The review is done. The article is full of ‘ If” ” We think” ” Maybe” The Fail doesn’t now shit. The press is scared because the Oprah special is going to be about the racist Rotten Rota. I don’t believe she is going to talk about the RF.

    • windyriver says:

      I love the implication that life can still hold no greater honor than to receive a patronage from TQ, and no greater devastation than having that honor removed, and the palace treat you with “coldness”.

  14. sandy says:

    the thing is the patronages would probably be pissed about that since the sussexes are actually donating money directly and helping them, whereas recent studies have proven that otherwise having a royal patron doesn’t increase fundraising. so if the suggestion is to just give them sophie or kate or something instead of meghan, it just means they will lose money.

    • lanne says:

      Remember when Kate didn’t show up to one of her patronage’s for 8 years? God save a philanthropy from a royal patronage!

  15. Petra says:

    If the Queen take away their patronage, FREEDOM for Meghan and Harry. They no longer have to consider BRF when they make decisions. This is a good thing

  16. Watson says:

    I doubt these two care anymore. They have their own cash flow and they can raise their children without a carnival of experts or the rota hounding their every waking moment. What’s sad is that even with a full ocean in between them, they are still being harassed like ex lovers in some sad highschool musical. It’s exhausting and has lead to an escalation from “no one has really asked” if Megs is ok, to the carnival of experts dictated the birth certificate name removal, to “thanks to my mom and husband” and not to anyone in the royal family for our tabloid win. I can’t wait to see and hear the subtle shade during Oprah’s interview.

  17. JT says:

    They just announced a second child, they have multi-million dollar deal with Netflix/Spotify, they have larger estate in Montecito, Archwell is up with major collaborations, who gives a fuck about the review? A review which will change nothing for Harry and Meghan’s trajectory. My God. These people are so dumb, it’s a wonder the monarchy has lasted this long.

    • MsDiMeanOur says:

      the Brits still think that H&M are funded by TQ

      its the joke of the year

      • BayTampaBay says:

        EXACTLY! The commentariat of the Daily Fail continues to believe that future Charles III and QEII are privately funding the Sussexes with funds received from the UK tax payer. Therefore, the Sussexes are stealing money from the UK tax payer.

        As sick as this sounds, I am sorta looking forward to the “One Year Review” just to see what stupidity Buckingham Palace serves up in a formal Royal Press Release.

  18. Shoo fly says:

    So this is only for patronages, “passed down through the royal family?” That means not Mayhew, not Luminary Bakery, etc. This is all this nasty petty family have left?

    These organizations can see the writing on the wall. Who will be available to serve when the only working royals are Charles, Camilla, William and Kate?

  19. Pétulia says:

    I would like to see who will replace H&M as patron if they loose the patronage. Because unless it’s Charles or Anne they’re going to be a backlash.
    A good pr move for the RF right now would be to release a statement condemning the harassment from the press after the pregnancy announcement, saying the current situation is working for them and wish the couple well.

  20. MsDiMeanOur says:

    where can all of us here at Celebitchy apply for royal expert positions?

    we are all experts in jumping to conclusions – at least our conclusions are NOT so messed up.

  21. Digital Unicorn says:

    I don’t think this will be a tell all – its not their style but I do think it will be used to get their story across in a calm adult way.

    I also think they will make it clear that they are still close to and respect TQ and Chuck, but when it comes to the Cambridges I expect thats where things could get tricky as there is clearly bad blood there.

  22. TheOriginalMia says:

    DM flinging crap against the wall, hoping it’ll stick. Petty Betty has seen every punishment meted out against Harry backfire in her face. The backlash has been glorious. She won’t risk it again. Listening to William has made their situation worse, not better. Hiding behind her courtiers has created even greater divisions in the family and is threatening the very existence of the monarchy. She won’t strip Harry of another thing. Even if she did, there’s nothing to stop those organizations from having Harry and Meghan as non-Royal patrons.

    • Alexandria says:

      I don’t know about this. I feel or have suspicion that the Queen is being told all the good things only so she may have no clue what is the actual reception of Andrew’s interview and the entire situation with HM. Telling your boss only the good things is not unknown of…and trying to cover your asses while saying you tried your best to advise HM yadayada but they refused would also not be surprising.

  23. ABritGuest says:

    Lots of ‘could’ ‘might’ ‘it is understood’. Also that the queen would ask them to relinquish. Well which is it- is she taking them back or? Seems speculative & like threats depending on how the Oprah interview goes. Harry said on one rugby call that he would be there as long as he’s able so think they have been aware of possibility of losing these patronages.

    It’s just very telling that there’s never this punitive tone with Andrew.

  24. Louise177 says:

    I don’t think this is a big deal or significant. I assumed that since they’re not working Royals they couldn’t be involved with anything considered Royal. But considering these are charities Harry and Meghan can still work with them. It’s just not attached to the Royal family. I think some have already said they like working with them.

  25. Amy Bee says:

    As I said on another post, Harry and Meghan have moved on. Harry is well aware that the Queen was likely to take away his royal patronages if he didn’t return after the one year review. He even hinted to that when he did the Zoom call with the Rugby Football League last year. So it won’t be the big punishment that the press and the Royal Family think it is. It’s also not surprising that this is being reported. Harry is going to lose his rugby patronages because they’re usually held by the senior royals and they’re going to take the National Theatre and ACU away from Meghan. It would be great if an announcement was made in the next three weeks so that every one can see how vindictive the Royal Family is.

  26. Janice Hill says:

    Before the interview is the only time they can really smear the Sussexes because they can base their complaints on anything they want. After the interview is over, they’ll have only 1 or 2 things to latch on to, and they’ll twist themselves in knots making it into 10 or 20.

  27. MellyMel says:

    And once again the Queen & BRF being dumb and petty. How is there not one person who works for them telling them to just stop?! It’s like they have no idea how they look to the rest of us with this bs.

  28. whateveryousay says:

    That DM story doesn’t even make sense. So if they are taking their patronages away in March why would the 12 month review even still be a thing? Good lord have some critical thinking skills RR.

  29. Izzy says:

    If their patronages are taken away I hope:
    - Meghan organizes a huge fundraiser to support the Broadway artists who have been out of work during the pandemic
    - Harry visits Walter Reed Medical Center with President Biden
    - Harry gets involved with sports leagues’ players associations here in the US to support their causes
    In addition to the amazing causes they have and will support.
    Bite me, Betty.
    Yes, I feel petty today.

  30. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    As if they’d care. They have their home, relative freedom, and are expanding their family. House Petty can’t change any of that.

  31. Merricat says:

    It’s so bizarre that they all assume this will be a settling of accounts–why would you think such a thing, unless there were accounts to be settled? The Sussexes are interesting people who are actively at work in the world; an interview with them is a winning proposition. Lol. No one is surprised except the people who chased them out.

    • Lemons says:

      Exactly. Landing an exclusive interview with Oprah should have been on Charles’ list and William’s list, but Charles probably follows Mummy in thinking he’s too good for it, and William is too dull.

      This is PR gold, better than any ribbon-cutting or Zoom call. Honestly, I stan their media savvy and the way they are winning this “war” by just being excellent. All hail King Harry and Queen Meghan!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Neither Charles nor William would not do an interview with Oprah as it would very much offend the British Media. Charles & William need the British Media; Meghan and Harry do not.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Neither Charles nor William would do”

        Sorry!

      • MsIam says:

        I disagree on William and Charles not doing an Oprah interview. They would jump for it, especially since this is not an interview but a 90 minute special. They both are trying to portray themselves as international statesmen especially Charles. And this special is owned by Oprah meaning she can sell this special to any outlet around the world. It will go global.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @MsIam – You may be right about Charles & William but I think Piers Morgan would be rather pissed and have a major meltdown.

  32. Emile says:

    The lies and gymnastics in this piece my god.

    “While there was no angry reaction from the palace” — stripping them of their patronages is literally the angry reaction.

    “it has taken great pains not to get into a public slagging match with the Sussexes” — they have been slagging them for years.

    “The decision to strip the couple of their last remaining royal titles is not being done as a reaction to the interview” — then why publish this exclusive now, mere hours after we found out about the interview?

    These fucking people.

  33. aquarius64 says:

    Talk about stuck on stupid. People beyond the island will see the move at vindictive. This is the BM jealous that Oprah got the interview.

  34. AnnaKist says:

    What a bunch of despicable, petty twats. We always worry about what outsiders can do to hurt us, but forget that family can be even worse. And these garbage people still haven’t acknowledged that Harry and Meghan left because of them. As difficult;t as it must have been, who could blame them for wanting – needing – to get away from these vultures?

  35. February-Pisces says:

    Harry and Meghan don’t need their patronage’s, but their patronage’s need them. It’s beyond petty but we all know that’s how they roll,

    Also I’m seeing an even greater turn around of support for harry and Meghan on twitter. Prince Andrew was trending this morning, in response to the media being kinder to him than Meghan. Do the palace, press and ratchet rota still believe the same shouty rants about H+M still work? The whole point is to make people hate them, but all it’s doing is make people want to fight FOR them instead. It’s literally having an adverse effect. So why are they still sticking to the same tactic? They’re all one trick wonders, if they were smart they would have changed tactics by now.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yup, exactly – the more they (the british press, especially the RRs) rant and rave about Harry and Meghan, the worse they look to the rest of the world and the more people want to defend Harry and Meghan.

      • February-Pisces says:

        You know when people write reviews, if you write both positive and negative things it is more believable and therefore the writer appears more credible. Saying only negatives things about something’s seems hateful like the writer was angry, where as saying positive things looks like an advert. Shouting hateful things constantly about H&M only make the person saying it look hateful and biased and compromise their credibility to judge a situation fairly. Just like the sugary Keenbridge pr reads mostly like a paid for advertorial. Neither is believed, therefore ineffective.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @February-Pisces – So true! I think your explanation gives the reason why, of all the Meghan & Harry books, the Robert Lacey’s “Battle of Brothers (2020)” seemed to me to be the most credible.

  36. Moxylady says:

    I know I know. But her skin omg. What does she use?!? Are there dupes…. she is like sunshine after a life of grey skies

  37. Alexandria says:

    Go ahead and take them all you can’t stop them living their lives anymore. Go ahead, they will contribute as a normal citizen if they want to. Go ahead and then will you stop talking about them DM? No! Cos you’re obsessed, just own it you weirdo racists.

  38. Julia K says:

    In addition to intelligence, Meghan is a realist and can read the room better than Harry. She knows there is nothing left to lose now and is fine with it. Cue the interview. I hope she lets loose in the most dignified way.

    • booboocita says:

      Both she and Harry have tremendous emotional intelligence — just the quality you want if you need to read rooms quickly and gauge public opinion efficiently. There’s no doubt that they’re both formidable advocates for nonprofits and charities.

      And I’m convinced that Harry gets his talents from his mother. What a pity PWBT didn’t inherit any of Diana’s emotional intelligence.

  39. RoyalBlue says:

    So the royal family will punish the patronages by pulling off their biggest benefactors and be swapped out for some boring, dusty old duke of glouchester? That’s the extent of their spitefulness. The patronages are not dumb and know that they have the best of the best to work with them, they will invite them to be regular patrons.

  40. Kyliegirl says:

    This is at least the 10th time they have said this is the last straw. I know the palace has proven themselves to be incompetent, heartless, asshats, but is it the palace that wants them to be “punished” by loosing the titles and patronages or it is the media dictating what they want the palace to do. As said many times above, it is not H&M who are hurt by this, it is the patronages and charities that are struggling so much. I bet if the media asked the charities what they want the answer would be totally different. Especially with the reports last year that a royal patronage doesn’t equate to much money. At least H&M are putting in work with their patronages. There current patronages could be given to other royals who may visit once very 8 years. They don’t need to be royal patrons to contribute. Also, Harry has done so much with Rugby that I am sure they can figure out a role for him to play. The royals don’t hold all the cards or dare say any cards. Covid has really exposed how useless the royal family is. If they were smart they would be hitching their wagon to H&M. The royal family has definitely not had a good start to 2021 and the hits will keep on coming.

  41. Lunasf17 says:

    As an American I have no idea what a patronage actually is (I just read about it here) but do they British people actually care about these positions? According to my googleing they bring awareness and honor to these institutions but people are just awarded them based on who they were born to or married into? The whole thing sounds outdated and something the monarchy is holding onto more than the actual citizens and H&M. I don’t really see this as a big loss for anyone.

  42. HeatherC says:

    I hope they take them. Then Harry and Meghan have no pressing reason to return to Britain. Just for funerals, coronations (at least Charles’s coronation) and maybe weddings. I don’t believe they will attend Williams’ investiture as POW. And maybe not even his coronation. Since ( if I understand correctly…please correct me if I don’t!!) the titles of Duke and Duchess can only be taken away with Parliament’s charge of treason, this is their last imaginary vestige of control. Take it Betty. Take it.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I have researched this a little bit and as I understand the matter with regards to Titles of the Peerage both Royal and non-Royal: Parliament has to issue a Bill of Attainment and there has to be a reason for this issuance. Treason would be a valid reason for Parliament to issue a Bill of Attainment.

      Anyone with more information, please chime in.

      • MsIam says:

        Didn’t Parliament pass the buck to the royals? Nobody wants to take those titles and be the bad guys unless Meghan and Harry are caught selling uranium to terrorists, lol. Its just the tabloids and Piers Morgan that bleat on about it.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @MsIam – What if Andrew was caught selling uranium to terrorists? LOL! LOL!

  43. Nic919 says:

    It’s going to look really bad if they remove patronages for doing an interview with Oprah when Andrew still hasn’t been removed from patronages and he’s a person of interest in an under age sex trafficking ring.

    • MsIam says:

      Exactly since they were praising Harry for doing that special with Oprah on mental health. Did they assume Harry would not be talking about his personal experiences then? So now to have this conniption about an interview seems over the top and totally unnecessary. They should be glad the Sussexes are not talking to Wendy Williams, lol.

  44. Kalana says:

    It was over after Remembrance Day. The BRF doubled down on their ugly behavior months later with bragging that they originally lied and the Queen personally and immediately denied the request.

    You can’t work somewhere if the organization is proudly dysfunctional.

  45. Maida says:

    Once upon a time I (an American) used to see the BRF as at least benign, and maybe even doing some good in the world. Wow has the BRF’s treatment of Meghan, after their treatment of Diana, really changed my perception. And I doubt I’m alone in that. Every day the BRF seems more out of touch and petty.

    • Alexandria says:

      You are not alone. I am South East Asian and I am appalled at the Royal Rot. I am shocked yellow media in the UK can peddle lies so easily and be part of some weird rota that the royal family depends on? Disgusted with the pretense that Britain is not racist? I took Cambridge O and A levels and I thought Britain was this island of intellectuals and slightly more enlightened than Americans. But nah! Don’t get me wrong, my country is not perfect either but there’s no such illusion about us!

  46. K says:

    If this happens. I am sorry for those charities. But we need H&M all over the world. These two are going to be even busier!

    • L4frimaire says:

      Agree. It will be those charities loss but everyone will move on. It really is up to the Queen and the organizations and Harry and Meghan will respect her decision. They have moved abroad but they will continue to support them in private capacity. I think the wreath incident really showed Harry where the writing on the wall was, so he will continue to build the veteran’s charities he created, like Invictus and Endeavor. National Theatre, who knows, maybe she’ll be a patron but is obviously not the royal patron. Lots of organizations have patrons or board members who aren’t necessarily even in the country. I just can’t get over all this strife is because someone said enough with the abuse and slander.

  47. Tinkerbelly says:

    Thank you Petty Betty, Rosebush-Billy and Keen Kate! Nobody could have lifted the veil as thoroughly as you. Now the world can start adjusting their view of the RF according to the reality. The RF is a bunch of overpaid racist, petty, dumb thieves ( their family wealth stems from violent theft in the colonies) and they are pedophiles and enablers of pedophiles. Andrew is neither tje first nor the last. Evil. Sick. Deranged. Psychopathic. Heartless. Greedy. Petty. And more. They need to be held accountable. Then go. And never come back.

  48. lanne says:

    This is a really stupid move by the shit standard advisors. If Charles is smart, he will have someone tell the tabloids that this story is NOT true. Status quo for now keeps the Sussexes attached to the RF by a thread—a thread that Charles could still pull if he sees a place for them during his own reign. Snap that last thread and they risk having no connection whatsoever to the Sussexes (I mean as a Firm, not family). As of now, any positive thing they do can still be linked to the RF, and the RF can benefit from the positive effects. Cut them out entirely and you have a really awkward situation: Andrew as a member of the family while the Sussexes are not. Will not and Kannot on the public dole doing nothing while the Sussexes bring value to their projects and achieve measurable results. They are setting up a lifetime of comparisons where they will lose. The Sussexes will represent the future while the Cambridges represent a dying past that, in the shitshow of Brexit, won’t be worth paying for. I say this all the time, but racism makes people dumb. In a real corporation these advisors would be shitcanned for losing their top talent.

  49. MsIam says:

    Harry and Meghan don’t need those patronages anyway. Harry still has Invictus Games and any other military charity he chooses to work with. And their Global Kitchen venture will be world wide. Tbh I always wondered how they would manage doing these UK patronages and their own foundation, Netflix and who knows what else. It was a good run while it lasted but when its over, its over.

  50. Jenn says:

    “One source described the interview as ‘one of the most inevitable and, sadly, predictable consequences’ of the ‘Megxit’ saga. The decision to take part in the interview risks angering – and embarrassing – the Royal Family. It could also widen the divisions between Harry and his brother, Prince William, and William’s wife, the Duchess of Cambridge.”

    I am consistently galled at how much the BRF have absolutely never trusted Meghan to be in charge of her own messaging, when branding and messaging are in fact a major part of her skill set. She is terrific at communicating authenticity, openness, and intimacy — a skill honed through years of hustle — while in actuality being an intensely private and guarded person. She would have been SUCH an ally and resource to the institution if they’d only let her.

    I really WISH Meghan would get on TV and drag them — that she would “embarrass” them exactly in the way they fear — but she never would. They will inevitably find fault in her performance anyway, as always.

  51. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I’ve already disagreed with people on this, but I still think Harry and Meghan should completely cut ties with the royal family, who are as toxic as Meghan’s. Their charities should be THEIR charities, not royal patronages. Their work should be on behalf of THEIR foundations, not the royal family. Their income, decisions, business ventures, should all be 100% THEIR decisions with no input from the royal family. And yes, they should give up their titles. Actually, they ALL should be giving up their titles and royal families should not exist in the 21st century. However, unlike the others, Harry and Megan are capable of building a business empire on merit, not on outdated notions of bloodline.

  52. VIV says:

    Haaaa provide the couple with the chance to ‘move on’. They have been moved on! These vampires need mirrors.

  53. Over it says:

    Like hell they are not being stripped of titles as punishment for the interview. The Windsors and their henchmen are all batshit crazy mad. You lit the fuse with your racist attacks and deplorable behavior towards Meghan and now you crying wolf? Get the F out. William I will believe to my dying day said some very nasty things to and about Meghan to Harry . Harry won’t go mental for a simple are you sure take time to get to know her. Give me a f———-ing break. Harry isn’t some unstable emotional wreck no matter how the press and British media try to paint him as such. I noticed we hear absolutely NOTHING from Charles and his court, I think after the crown season 4, Charles is terrified of what will come out and implicates him and he doesn’t want more bad publicly,.William and Kate have also gone dark because they know what they did and if Harry talks then the monarchy may never recover. They probably won’t but it would be a fitting ending to a monarchy built off the backs of colonialism and slavery and racism to come tumbling down at the hands of a descendant of slavery. It October me recently that even though George might one day be king, he will never be as famous as Archie. Archie birth forever changed that.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment