Prince Harry & Meghan’s patronages have no idea what’s happening anymore

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend an event at Millennium Point to celebrate International Women's Day in Birmingham on 8th March 2018

I’ve actually gotten into the rhythm of these royal newscycles, which is sort of scary. They’re predictable and recyclable storylines every time, and they generally follow the same path. 1) Harry and Meghan have a big announcement, 2) the British media goes into full-throttle hysterics, 3) the official spox from the Palace say shady sh-t on or off the record, usually involving a claim of being “blindsided,” 4) the entirely media-made scandal gets drawn out and blown up into separate reaction pieces about how William/Kate/Charles/Liz really feel about this thing Harry and Meghan have announced, and 5) punitive action, the gleeful threats of punishment. There are tons of added steps, but those are the big five.

As we heard, the Queen is now hellbent on punishing Harry and Meghan by forcing them to resign from their “royal” patronages. For Harry, that means stepping down from his military positions AND stepping down from his presidency of the Rugby Football League. For Meghan, that means stepping down from the National Theatre. But what happens if… those patronages don’t want to lose their popular and charismatic patrons?

The Telegraph adds that none of the organisations with which the couple will have to abandon their ties have yet received any information from the Palace, left ‘blindsided’ and uncertain about the future. Many have reportedly expressed a desire to keep up their links to the Duke and Duchess and are privately frustrated and not being kept in the loop about developments.

Consequently it’s thought the decision will be announced ahead of the end of the official review period at the close of March, to allow for necessary preparations to be made. The Rugby Football League, which was anticipating having Harry ‘front and centre’ of its World Cup coverage later this year, commented that it was ‘very proud’ to have had him as patron since 2016, noting: ‘The RFL has not received official correspondence relating to any changes at this time.’ The National Theatre, meanwhile, a patronage handed on to the Duchess by the Queen, has publicly described her as ‘very engaged’ and happy to utilise her ‘star reach.’ The Telegraph alleges, however, that one source implied there was no love lost between the organisation and Meghan.

A source reportedly told the Telegraph this week that Harry and Meghan were reluctantly resigned to giving up such roles, but that they themselves were also yet to receive confirmation from the Palace. An individual said to be close to the Sussexes said they knew they wouldn’t be unable to retain such titles, but that it was saddening nonetheless, stating: ‘All they have done is express their commitment to them. There is no question that if it was up to them, they would keep them.’

[From Tatler]

I mean, I’m not even going to try to fact-check or keep all of the different stories straight. Either Buckingham Palace was always going to “take away” the Sussexes’ patronages or they weren’t. Either the one-year review was cancelled or it wasn’t. Either the Queen wants to punish the Sussexes for existing or she doesn’t. All the rest of this is just noise and mess. It always surprises me, though, to see the utter Amateur Hour over there. The Queen and her sycophants didn’t bother to tell those patronages that they were about to lose their royal patrons because Liz is that f–king petty. And I love that H&M’s people continue to make the point that this really isn’t their call, that it’s just an out-of-touch Queen being an a–hole.

I’m not going to devote a whole post to this excellent Guardian op-ed, but it’s absolutely worth a read. Guardian columnist Marina Hyde did a hilarious piece about how the British media is sh-tting the bed because they simply got outmaneuvered by the Sussexes. There are so many great lines, like “Naturally you can see why some small-pond UK pundits simply can’t handle the Sussexes’ move to America. It’s a horrendous moment when you realise your competition for royal stories and interviews is no longer some necrotic dipsomaniac on a rival tabloid, but Oprah.” Hyde says that the media men leading the charge against Meghan are “so emotionally warped that the only way they can begin to release their feelings of social, racial and sexual resentment is by using a 94-year-old woman’s feelings as a proxy.” My favorite is the way she ended it, with this comment directed at the British media: “you need to face the unavoidable takeout: you’ve been outmanoeuvred by an emotional wellness podcaster. It’s like being out-strategised by kale.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend an event at Millennium Point to celebrate International Women's Day in Birmingham on 8th March 2018

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

72 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan’s patronages have no idea what’s happening anymore”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amy Bee says:

    For all the talk about Harry and Meghan disrespecting the Queen, it’s the Queen that’s disrespecting the patronages and Harry and Meghan.

    • janey says:

      came here to say that. It’s not just punitive to H&M but also the organisations who rely on the two of them. truly shows the RF dgaf about anyone but themselves.

      • Amy Bee says:

        The patronages are used to justify the monarchy’s existence. The Royal Family doesn’t really care about these charities.

      • Nyro says:

        Amy Bee, yep. The royals have set up a situation where the patronages basically provide “jobs” for them, busy work to justify the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars they live off of each year. And of course there’s the huge PR benefit the charities provide as well. The BRF gets far far more from the charities than they give, that’s for damn sure.

    • FancyHat says:

      It really is. Shows how little the RF cares about the patronages. They are just pawns on a chess board in their war with the Sussexes.

      That Guardian article was hysterical.

      And can we have a post about Emily Andrews following Kaiser on Twitter? Cause that is very funny

      • Becks1 says:

        Does she really???? She might be disappointed if she follows some of the links and sees what we say about her, lol.

      • L84Tea says:

        Wow, well, that pretty much confirms that she is reading these. Hi Emily! We see you!

      • February-Pisces says:

        Omg she does, I just checked. Lol. I knew they all stalked this site.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “That Guardian article was hysterical.”

        Have been reading Marina Hyde for years, she knows how to hit the nail on the head without a hammer and she is always that hysterical if not more.

        “Omg she does, I just checked. Lol. I knew they all stalked this site.”

        When you have a site with such phenomenal posters like Becks1, Nota, Digital Unicorn, L84Tea and February-Pisces, why is anyone surprised the British Tabloid Media is piggy-backing and stalking?

      • Jaded says:

        Welcome Emily! Please feel free to quote Kaiser, you’ll get the truth here – not some fever-dream barf from a bunch of royal wannabes and tabloid pond-scum.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        “…it’s like losing to KALE…” I. AM. DEAD.


      • Becks1 says:

        Emily, if you’re here, tell us – was it you who leaked the accounting code after you left the Sun? We must know!!!

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Hi Emily! We are here for you. Please feel free to introduce yourself.

      • Ginger says:

        I hope she will see how the public really sees the RF and the horrible treatment of the Sussex’s

      • Enny says:

        Am I the only one who read it (quickly) as “out-strategised by Kate?” 🤣

      • Nic919 says:

        @enny… I read it that way at first too. Both have the same level of intellectual ability.

    • And again, I say where is Communications strategy guru — Sara Latham — in all this? The “carnival of so-called royal experts” had a huge meltdown when the Sussexes hired Latham to head their Communications team. When the Sussexes shut down their royal office in early 2020, the Queen successfully wooed Latham to work for her. And yet, even with Latham working for Queen, BP Communications and PR strategy is absolutely horrible and out of touch.

      And talk about ‘same-old same-old’……the 👑🐀Rota tried in Jan 2020 to run that same BS about the National Theatre not being happy with Meghan and the National Theatre shut BS down immediately. Meghan had just been at NT doing some online event. Turned out the 👑🐀Rota source was one board member or other patron of NT that was quoted at the time re “unhappiness” and the NT said that person did not speak for the organization.

  2. Amelie says:

    Did they ever make an official announcement about Prince Andrew losing all of his patronages? Or did they just take his bio off a website and the patronages just deleted Andrew from their list of official patrons? So much fuss and back and forth over Meghan and Harry, two law abiding citizens, and yet Andrew and his patronages… radio silence?? (I just briefly looked it up, I guess the media did report on the removal from his 200+ patronages? Yet two people who committed no crimes are being treated like criminals simply for doing things on their terms).

    • ArtHistorian says:

      The difference is that the Palace hasn’t taken any of Andrew’s patronages away – rather the patronages are quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) dropping him because pedophilia and rape are things they don’t want associated with their organizations. Andrew is the royal embarrassment, not Meghan and Harry. It is insane that both the BRF and the BM act as if it is the opposite.

  3. Becks1 says:

    I love kale, just saying, lol.

    And yes, its total amateur hour and at this point its exhausting just to follow. The total outrage, the screeching about “disrespecting the queen,” the talk about the patronages, being blindsided – its so predictable and tiresome.

    I cant link tweets from this computer but on Sunday (or Monday? whenever the Oprah interview was announced) Peter Hunt tweeted something poking fun at the RRs, using all the buzz words, and Omid Scobie responded about being incandescent with rage. At this point the cycle is just so obvious and said that even those who are part of it can clearly see it.

    And its just flat out disrespectful to the patronages to not keep them in the loop or ask what they prefer. It treats them like they are just there for the queen to pass around as favors, not actual organizations that might want certain people as their patron.

    My guess is William wants the rugby patronage and Kate wants National Theatre and that’s where those two will end up.

    As for the op-ed – the line about “gathering powerlessness” and this bit – “Face it, we’re a country where one of the best ideas the government could come up with for hanging on to an independence-leaning Scotland was sending Prince Edward to live in it – a solution that treats Scotland like some Victorian attic. ” is just so true and hits the nail on the head. I even liked her comment about H&M being ridiculous – I dont think they are, but the point is, even IF you think they are ridiculous sometimes, its nothing compared to the behavior of the courtiers and RRs who write about it and spend their time insisting Meghan is going to ruin the UK because she wore dark nail polish or whatever.

    • Amy Bee says:

      My predictions for who gets Harry and Meghan’s patronages:

      William will get the Royal Marines and the Rugby patronages except England. Edward will get the National Theatre (the Daily Mail is already campaigning for that). ACU will go to Anne or Sophie. QCT will go to Charles. London Marathon will go to Kate. England Rugby will go to Sophie.

      • Becks1 says:

        It will be interesting to see how close your predictions are. I do think William will get the Royal Marines (I think he wants that and he’s the one lobbying for them t lose all their patronages because he wants the marines) and the marathon is a good guess for Kate.

      • Amy Bee says:

        I’m going to write them down to see if my predictions will come true when the announcement is made. And yes, William has been lobbying for the Royal Marines and I’d say, for Meghan and Harry to be punished. I picked Kate for the London Marathon because it’s alleged she likes running.

      • Chris. says:

        Am I the only one who doesn’t believe those stories? I don’t believe they are going to strip them from those patronages, because they would have done it last year when they left. Why now? I think Harry may lose his military thing, but the rest , I am not so sure. They want for Harry to still have a connection with his country of birth, by stripping everything from him, they will never see him again. I just don’t believe those stories created by the press as always. The same press who told us for the past 10 months that the Sussexes would lose their HRH and Duke titles for good, and then out of nowhere they said it was never the case! They always make up stories. If the Queen is silent, and the patronages have no clue, it means that there was never a discussion at the first place. Click bait!

      • Carmen-Jamrock says:

        Theres a reason that even the RotaRats think the QCT is “a grey area” and hv therefore kept their grubby hands off assigning it to any of the RoyalGrifters
        You should prolly look up how QCT got started & how & why PettyBetty got the honor of “patron of QCT.”

    • Myra says:

      It’s really disrespectful to the organisations, not to consult them beforehand, but then run to the media to participate in a vindictive, smear campaign. Honestly, what deplorable behaviour by the queen. We know that she fought so hard for Andrew, who befriended a paedophile and himself has been credibly accused by a victim of sex trafficking. She made sure we saw them together, riding, smiling, during the peak of media commentary on him. But it is her grandson and his wife that she wants to humiliate. What a monarch!

    • L84Tea says:

      Kale is a superfood. So if Meghan is kale…you see where I’m going… 🙂

    • Lucky Charm says:

      “It treats them like they are just there for the queen to pass around as favors, not actual organizations that might want certain people as their patron.” Just like Prince Andrew did, only with underage girls to his friends. Different apple, same tree. That family is just horrible.

    • GraceB says:

      I agree with everything Kaiser has said here and it shows just how manipulative and dangerous the tabloid media can be. I’d bet that while there is a lot of tension between all the Royals, the media have amplified this to the max, not just by making it seem like a bigger deal than it all actually is/was but by actively creating more tensions and drama.

      @Becks1, I can see where you’re coming from but I wonder whether actually this is all about timing. I suspect that removing various patronages was always coming but the Royal family perhaps hadn’t finalised any decisions and that’s why patronages are in the dark They weren’t even supposed to know until the decision was made, not just to remove it but whether it was getting replaced and if so, by who.

      Probably the Oprah stuff caused these details be be leaked or announced before the actual finalisation took place and now they’re scrambling to get it done.

  4. Beech says:

    “out-strategised by kale”. Oh my belly from laughing so hard!

  5. Petra says:

    She basically called those media that are hounding Meghan and Harry “Basic”. Marina needs to give a class on shadiness.

    • Ronaldinho says:

      Brilliant column. Perfectly put.
      They cannot bear that they are being out manoeuvred by a woman they want to abuse. A woman. A black woman. How dare she.
      It frightens me to an extent – how dangerous and destructive these news outlets are and the lengths they will go to.
      Like truly abusive partners – where and when does it end?

    • KL says:

      Darling, there was no shadiness to be found. That was a straight-up read.

  6. February-Pisces says:

    “You’ve been out manoeuvred by an emotional wellness podcaster” lol that line was savage.
    But like we’ve been saying all along the Sussex’s are 10 steps ahead of the game, and they have always been.

    Willie, keen and the palace thought they were so smug cos they basically bought the British media. Whilst Loose women (lol) and This Morning are trashing Meghan on palace orders, Queen Auntie Oprah, one of the most powerful women in broadcasting get one-on-one access, something they can only dream of. The British media look like an absolute joke in comparison.

  7. Nyro says:

    Honestly, if you’re heading up a charity and have Harry or Meghan involved with you, you’ve got to be an absolute dimwit to choose the Windows over them. You could have a documentary on freakin’ Netflix showcasing your organization or you could get a 30 minute visit from Kate every seven years. Like, how is this even a choice? Lol

    Anyway, what I’d love to see happen is for the queen to put out a statement saying she’s stripped them of their patronages. Let it marinate for about two hours, with the British media celebrating and praising queenie for putting the Sussexes in their place. And then suddenly, one by one, the patronages start putting out statements saying that they are choosing to stay on with Meghan and Harry. Total humiliation for the royal family. That’s my dream scenario.

    • MaryContrary says:

      They don’t get a choice though, right? The Queen chooses who gets which patronages. The organizations themselves don’t get to dictate.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The organizations aren’t powerless – there have been stories about orgs that wanted to drop Andrew and that the Palace tried to push back behind the scenes but eventually gave up. If the various orgs want to keep working with Meghan and Harry I suspect that that’s what they’re going to do. They’d just not calling them royal patrons anymore.

  8. Vanessa says:

    To punished the Sussex’s for leaving and thriving the royal family has decided that it’s ok to take way patronage from them during a health crisis. And how the royals and the royal reporters think this a good ideas their basically Bragging about closing down charities to punished Meghan and Harry .

  9. Sofia says:

    It’s not punishing the Sussexes but it’s punishing their patronages. They like working with the Sussexes. Honestly I hope the patronages call up BP and tell them strongly that they want to keep the Sussexes.

  10. Elizabeth says:

    Dayum, Marina Hyde. “Necrotic dipsomaniac on a rival tabloid”!! Gold.

  11. Snuffles says:

    A big part of the Royal smoke and mirrors show is claiming that they are here to SERVE the people. And officially supporting charities is a big part of it.

    Do these petty mutha fuckas even SEE how BAD it makes them look by leaving these organizations twisting in the wind as they publicly play games with the Sussex’s in an attempt to manipulate and punish them!?

    They’ve already been exposed as being pretty useless as a patron. Now they want to take away the people who actually are engaged and bringing in measurable results just to show the world who’s boss!?

    Their propensity for self destruction knows no bounds.

  12. S808 says:

    I feel really bad for the charities. Meghan and Harry will be fine without them but the replacement patrons the charities will get is gonna be a huge step down. Keeping them in the dark about this especially disrespectful imo. Hopefully they can work something out as far as working with H&M regardless.

  13. CC2 says:

    Why must they give up the patronages? Lady Frederick is not a hrh or a working royal but she got one patronage this year.

  14. KL says:

    “As it goes, I always thought Meghan was an ideal fit with the House of Windsor. Like them, she has several appalling and grasping relatives, and though they are not as innately classy as Prince Andrew or the children of SS officers or anything…”

    I have had one of my most frustrating mornings of my life, trudging all the way to downtown offices to be told 1) my appointment didn’t exist, 2) my appoint exists, technically, since I have the letter confirming it.. but it SHOULDN’T, 3) someone will call me explaining why it shouldn’t exist, 4) that person will be otherwise unhelpful on the problem I booked my appointment for, but here’s a second hotline to call, only to discover 5) no one at that hotline is picking up.

    (In conclusion: burn Social Security to the ground. Oh, wait, we already did, that’s the issue!!)

    That Guardian article managed to take my pain away, the venting of pure spleen by proxy. Bless.

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m just impressed you found an open office. And yes, SS has been decimated by budget cuts over the past years in terms of closures, reduced staffing etc.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      By SS, I believe she is referring to Philip. Didn’t Philip’s sisters married Nazis, and they were part of the SS wing of Hitler’s soldiers.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Princess Michael of Kent’s father was an SS officer.

      • Becks1 says:

        No lol, I was responding to KL who referenced Social Security, I assume she visited an office today.

        But yes, one of Philip’s sisters or cousins was a Nazi or SS officer and so was Princess Michael of Kent’s father. I think her father may have turned to the allies before they won the war and renounced being a Nazi, but I’m not positive. I just think i read it on wikipedia. But it does crack me when I see her father referred to as an “Alleged Nazi”. Its not alleged! He actually was!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think Marina Hyde was referring to Princess Michael of Kent in The Guardian article.

  15. Over it says:

    There is a saying, petty Betty is cutting off her nose to spite her face. Meaning just to stick it to Harry for choosing to love and honor his vows to his wife and now his children, she will punish the patronages. I can’t believe this spiteful racist B is the head of the Church of England. Should she not be supportive of marriage and family? Really what is wrong with her?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think QEII is just setting back and watching this play out as is her usual standard mode of operation. I think Royal Courtiers leaking false stories and/or half-truths to lying falsifying Royal Rat Rota Reporters (who really know NOTHING about what is really going on in QEII’s head) are driving this latest news cycle.

  16. LawyaGal says:

    That Guardian op Ed made my week! It was delicious.

  17. tiredoldcrazylady says:

    I don’t understand patronages – versus just being on the board of a non-profit. Can’t H&M serve on the board of any non-profit organization they want to support? If, of course, the non-profit is interested in working with them? The notion that the Queen would really have any say on their involvement with community organizations seems strange to me – I get that the “royal” connection might be lost – but if H&M want to work on behalf of these organizations – they don’t need the queen’s permission.

    I’m no patron – but I am a board member for many organizations and I did not need a crown to make a real impact of the lives of the people we serve.

  18. SarahCS says:

    That Guardian op-ed is GOLD. I saw it mentioned in a comment elsewhere so thank you for linking to it. I needed something like that to end my day with and I think ‘being out-strategised by kale’ should stick around.

    As for the rest of it, I simply can’t get over the blinding irony of how H&M are ‘destroying the monarchy’ by living their lives while the actual monarchy does nonsense like this and tears itself apart.

  19. Reece says:

    Gotta see if I can get “Out- Strategised by Kale” on a shirt.
    Spelled the British way too.

  20. Ohpioneer says:

    If I were H&M I’d sit back and let Betty be as Petty as possible because then BP has zero control over what they do and/or say. Once you’ve taken away everything you can you’ve given up any leverage you’ve had. And, is there any reason H&M can’t continue to fundraise or highlight the work these charities are doing through Archewell? As long as the charities are open to working with them as private benefactors let Willileaks & Keen Katie have the royal patronage title ( you know they will just do the minimum possible anyway ).

    • Amy Too says:

      The Sussexes highlighted and worked with tons of charities and organizations that they weren’t technically “royal patrons” of. They had that revolving group of patronages on their Instagram and they recommended some great charities for the global Sussex baby shower and for birthday donations. I don’t think the Hubb kitchen or SmartWorks were technically her patronages, nor was Luminary bakery, but she just did stuff with them anyways because she likes to do charity work and help good causes, as opposed to royals who only show up sporadically to their “official royal patronages” because they have to and even then, they don’t visit each one even once a year. Kate has something like 7 patronages and she let 8 years go by between visits with Action on Addiction, and then it was just a virtual zoom meeting.

      So yeah, Harry and Meghan can continue to work with whomever they want, they just won’t be official royal patrons. They can partner with whomever they want for projects and publicity for the charity. They can raise money, raise awareness, visit, send funds, whatever they want. Even if all these places get new royal patrons, there’s nothing that says the Sussexes can’t still support them.

  21. Alexandria says:

    Oh please Marina Hyde can we have some more?

  22. Lizzie says:

    Maybe the patronages haven’t been told because the whole thing is made up by the media.

  23. 809Matriarch says:

    I believe the main reason for stripping them of patronages is more jealousy. Meghan’s patronages have done so well for the short time she has been a royal patron. So to eliminate unfavorable comparisons to the useless patron who sometimes even forgets she IS a patron, they will just erase Meghan and Harry from the royal patron roster. It is sad for the charities and organizations. Harry & Meghan will be fine. There are plenty of causes to occupy their need to work and contribute. This only makes the Queen and her “Firm” look bad.

  24. Jane Doe says:

    I work at a charity. Let me tell you what kind of wildly lucrative fundraising and high impact social justice advocacy I could do with the help of the Sussex brand over the stupid royal family…

  25. Abena Asantewaa says:

    Is the queen really in charge, does she really know, what the hell is going on, or are the courtiers running things on her blindside? Basically, I will say, as far as the queen is concerned: ‘The Lights are On, but There is Nobody At Home’ Please old lady, pass the crown on to Charles. About Charles, that is another spineless father, who stands by, for the media to abuse and harass his own son, and daughter-in-law, such a sad situation, come in, Mama Doria!

  26. notasugarhere says:

    ‘The Telegraph alleges, however, that one source implied there was no love lost between the organisation and Meghan.’

    I remember one loosely-aligned person bitching about Meghan but the National Theatre pushed back against her and said they love working with Meghan.

  27. Nic919 says:

    Unless Andrew is stripped of his patronages they will look idiotic if any are moved from Meghan and Harry.

  28. Ami says:

    Like it or lump it, the royal family is a business. And they simply don’t have space for part time employees when so many members want to be full time. Megan and Harry said they no longer want to be full time, they moved to a location that made full time work impossible. Their royal engagements and patronage’s will be redistributed amongst the full time royals. It really is that simple. How do you think it would go down if one of those charities called them to let them know a fundraiser was on and the answer was “yeah sorry no, we won’t have time to travel to the UK for it, my working hours are every other Sunday, better luck next time” ?!?!

    • Lanie says:

      Oh please. If they had a problem with royals not showing up for engagements because of “scheduling conflicts,” or “not wanting people to expect t them to show up regularly,” Katie Keen would be stripped of her patronages.

      Seems their full time star employees are the lazy ones, except Charles, Anne and Sophie, who has to underreport her engagements so Workshy and Duchess Doolittle don’t look like slackers.

    • Likeyoucare says:

      Yup how can meghan and harry go to the fundraiser when they live in another state.

      Kate the keen queen took more than eight years to contact her charity.
      And one of her charity is so succesful, they had to close them down because of her inaction.

      Meghan send her chrismast card to her charity and donate her own money so that they can mention it in their social media and people took notice. The charities receive more donation because of her clout.
      Those charities need money more than the royal family.

    • Lizzie says:

      You have to admit that Keen Kate is part time. Her patronage’s have closed down and she doesn’t bat an eye to help. One publicly called her out for not visiting for over 8 years. Strip her patronage’s and give them to Anne, Edward or Sophie.

    • McGee says:

      @ Ami

      Lol. No, *you* are being simple. That’s not how any of that works.