Prince Harry & Meghan’s remaining patronages are so happy right now

Prince Harry and Duchess of Sussex attend the WellChild Awards

On Friday, Queen Elizabeth II officially stripped the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of all of their “royal patronages,” meaning the patronages that Buckingham Palace controls. Which I still don’t fully understand – the military titles, sure, I get that QEII can literally pull rank and say this royal person gets the Marines and this royal gets the Irish Guards, etc. But, say, the National Theatre runs completely independently of the Windsors. Surely they would get a say in their patron? Apparently not.

What was interesting is that 3-4 minutes after the palace’s official announcement, the Sussexes made their own announcement, which was read as it was intended: as clapback. The Palace noted in their statement that “in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.” As in, the petty-ass Queen thinks she’s the sole gatekeeper to public service. M&H’s statement took issue with that, of course, noting: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex remain committed to their duty and service to the UK and around the world and have offered their continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role. We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.” Judging from the reaction of their remaining patronages, it’s clear that everyone acting independently of the House of Windsor is more than happy to have Harry & Meghan’s service. From Harper’s Bazaar:

Meghan & Harry’s remaining “private” patronages: For Meghan, this includes animal welfare charity, Mayhew, and Smart Works, which helps empower disadvantaged women back into the work place. Prince Harry will continue with his roles as patron for the Invictus Games Foundation, children’s charity WellChild, and Rhino Conservation Botswana.

Mayhew loves Meg: CEO of the Mayhew, Caroline Yates, tells BAZAAR that the charity, which Meghan became patron of in January 2019, is excited to continue their relationship with the duchess. “We are very proud to have the Duchess of Sussex as our patron, and are so pleased with the positive impact she has had on Mayhew over the past two years,” says Yates. “[The duchess] has helped us to shine a light on the vital work we do in our local community—helping vulnerable pets and owners and championing the human-animal bond,” she continues, who notes that the Sussexes’ Christmas card, which was shared exclusively with the charity, reached 250 million people through its social media channels. “We have also seen a rise in awareness of Mayhew and our services since becoming one of the duchess’s patronages, and we are extremely grateful to the duchess and our many supporters for their continuing dedication and generous donations. We can’t thank our Patron enough for her ongoing support.”

SmartWorks loves Meg: Smart Works are equally thrilled to continue their work with Meghan, who released a capsule wardrobe collection in September 2019 to raise resources and awareness for the program. “We are delighted to confirm that the Duchess of Sussex will remain a patron,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “We are thankful for everything she has done in support of our clients and look forward to working together in the future.”

Invictus loves Harry: Founded by Prince Harry in 2014 after serving in the military for 10 years, the Invictus Games Foundation has help thousands of veterans and military personnel around the world find new purpose and raise awareness of wounded, injured, and sick service men and women through its international sporting events and charity programs. In a statement shared with BAZAAR, CEO Dominic Reid, says the foundation is proud to have the prince as their patron. “He remains fully committed to both the Games and to the Invictus Games Foundation,” says Reid. “His work has had an extraordinary impact on the way in which disability, service, and mental health is viewed around the world. And he has been instrumental in changing the lives of many.”

WellChild loves Harry: The British children’s charity WellChild, which Prince Harry first worked with in 2011, has also enjoyed a long relationship with the royal. Chief executive Colin Dyer tells BAZAAR they’re “delighted” to still be working with the duke. “He has always been a great supporter of WellChild’s work and we look forward to continuing to work with him in the future,” says Dyer, who notes that Harry has recently spoken with the charity about how the existing needs of vulnerable children should not be forgotten during the pandemic.

What happened was not their call: “Of course they would have liked to continue with as many [of their patronages] as possible but, ultimately, returning the roles was not their decision,” a friend of the couple tells BAZAAR. “They’re moving forward proud of their achievements so far and eager to get on with the work ahead.”

[From Harper’s Bazaar]

I’m including some of the social media posts done by their current patronages. I’m sure it stings for Meghan and Harry to lose the patronages – especially Harry, with the military patronages – but they made it clear throughout the past year that if it was up to them, they would love to keep working. And it also stings because the Palace WANTS it to sting. The goal wasn’t to uphold some prissy-ass rule or petty-ass standard. The goal was to hurt Harry (and Meg, but especially Harry) for choosing his wife over his white privilege. Anyway, good luck to the National Theatre when Top CEO Kate is designated your royal patron. Get ready for her to show up once every five years. Same with William taking over some of Harry’s old patronages.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, WENN.

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

150 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan’s remaining patronages are so happy right now”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    Of course they’re happy. Who wouldn’t be? You get the coverage that comes with being associated with them, I’m assuming Archewell will do work with those orgs in the future, and you get the royals who actually know how to raise money and help their charities. Who would want Kate “I haven’t visited in 8 years” when you could have Meghan “how can we raise money for you?”

    • Seraphina says:

      Spot on Becks. Having H&M ensures you have a couple that is dynamic and cares about the charity and brings much attention to your work. And let’s be honest, no matter what the Palace does at this point, it just shows the Palace only cares about punishing the young couple. That is why H&M light continues to shine even brighter.

    • Eleonor says:

      I only would like to point out that there was no rush AT ALL to strip her favourite rapist son of all his patronages.

      • Pounamu says:

        In November 2019, Buckingham Palace announced Prince Andrew was stepping back from his 230 patronage’s which meant that the Queen didn’t have to strip them from him.

      • So_LacVert says:

        Thanks Pounamu, that is true. Unfortunately, Andrew still has his honorary military appointments which should have also been taken away from him in November and were not. So this action of hers was clearly not merely “protocol” but a personal form of punishment for Harry.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        @Pounamu. It was still the Queen’s decision to allow him to “step back” instead of stripping him of the patronages herself. And it still took overwhelmingly negative pressure from the public and media before they did even that much.

        They also made sure to do it in a way that minimized Andrew’s embarrassment and leave the door open for him to “step back” into Royal life if it’s ever possible in the future. There is a marked difference in how the Queen handled the Sussexes and the Andrew situations.

  2. Yoyo says:

    The Queen’s Commonwealth Trust seems miffed, but as they stated their focus is on young people.
    In a way I’m glad that Meghan don’t have to deal with that vicious old biddy from the National theater, that was always running to the tabloids.

    • anotherlily says:

      They also state that they glad Harry and Meghan remain in their circle of supporters.

    • Jegede says:


      Yeah, some National Theatre patrons were b!tching about Meghan being ‘obsessed’ with BLM and not focusing enough on the Arts.
      I’m happy Meghan doesn’t have to deal anymore with their negative energy.

      They can suck it, as far as I’m concerned. Their loss.👎👎

    • Original Jenns says:

      Part of me believes that Meghan could have stayed connected with the national theatre as it seems more of a public charity but since it has some wanna-be bitter Bettys and Williams, they are using this as an excuse to cut ties, maybe suck up to the Royal Family. They are the only program that made some snippy remarks when Harry and Meghan left the fold, so I’m not surprised. But since the Queen gave her the charity, maybe they felt pressure to left her go.

    • EllenOlenska says:

      I think Kate will show to the National theater because she can put on a pretty gown and a tiara and play pretty princess. No keenness required.

      • KimmyChoo says:

        But! But! The textiles!

      • BeanieBean says:

        Oh, right the textiles…. Remind me, what was it she was supposed to be doing concerning the textile industry?

      • Amy Too says:

        Learning about the textiles, of course. That seems to be pretty much all she does. She treats her patronages like a bunch of continuing education one-day-only classes at the local community center—something that your mother-in-law signed you up for as a way to get you out of the house because she “thought it would be fun to do together.”

      • Becks1 says:

        “the textiles” will never not make me laugh.

  3. Em says:

    I literally just said out loud, Fu*k those people (as in, BP). Even if we look at this through the worst possible lens, and see H&M as a couple who does enjoy status, wealth, and privilege (don’t we all?!), can we not just respect their work and their clear benefits to their patronages and society? They are literally hurting no one (except the paychecks of the RR, which – good). Let them be beautiful, wealthy, successful, while they take on wonderful initiatives. BP messed up and a lot of people will not think critically about the ongoings of this drama, however just let good people exist and peacefully do their charity work. Is this really the worst thing?! I’m giddy that they can clap back; Liz and Will best shut it because no one is censored anymore.

    • Yoyo says:

      Oh willnot, is out there leaking how mad he is, that Harry was rude to grandma, why not man up and call Harry.
      People are saying Cannot it no help to Willnot with work, and he is now realizing it, COVID-19 helped the Royal family in so many ways.

    • BountyHunter says:

      Exactly!! I hope it burned all the petty royals britches to see that they literally have no power over H and M anymore and that they are going to flourish and help others do the same.

  4. Belli says:

    As much as I would like Harry and Meghan to keep working publicly with the organisations they’ve had to hand back, I think they’re too classy to so obviously step on other royals’ toes like that (despite what the tabloids would have you believe).

    There was also an interesting article last year about how most royal patronages actually have no impact.

    It’s not surprising, really. When it comes to most of them, the patronage is for the royal’s benefit, not the organisation’s.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I think it is sad to lose them as patrons, especially the military ones for Harry, but at the same time, think they should be completely hands off and uninvolved with the patronages taken from them. Sure, say nice things about them and the dedicated people there, always support vets through Invictus and his initiatives, but other than that, it’s for the best. I think H&M have shown they are more than ready to move on, and it’s the BRF that wouldn’t acknowledge it. They could have sorted this a year ago when they left, but they wanted to use these organizations, especially the military, as leverage to get Harry back. The organizations will adjust and the new royal patrons will make the rounds.

      • Becks1 says:

        The palace absolutely thought they could use the patronage’s to get the Sussexes back. I think losing them stung, especially the military ones, but they were never going to stay just for those patronage’s if nothing else changed. They were done last March and I think only the RRs and palace didn’t know that.

      • Amy Too says:

        I’ve been wondering how they could continue to be confused about Harry and Meghan’s intentions when Harry and Meghan have bought a house, signed with Spotify, signed with Netflix, signed with the speaking agency, started Archewell, etc. I wonder if the BRF thought that all of those things were really just Meghan doing things for Meghan and that Harry was sort of just either being dragged along but definitely not highly involved with the details, or Harry was just helping to set Meghan up comfortably before he returned? Because it really seems like they were holding out hope until very recently with the pregnancy announcement. And I think they’re using the Oprah interview as cover for their anger/shock about the pregnancy and what it signifies. But still, the family knew in November, like the rest of us, that Meghan and Harry had had a miscarriage, so that obviously means they were trying for another baby. Did they just think that because it ended in a miscarriage it negated any of the feelings of commitment and family-building and future-planning that these two had for each other? Did they think it signified that Meghan could never have another child? Did they think that their love wasn’t strong enough to overcome the tragedy? Despite their love being strong enough to overcome about 4 years worth of continuous tragedy?

      • Cate says:

        I’m not surprised that the BRF doesn’t “get it”. I “broke up” with my toxic parents after my father repeatedly refused to stop bullying my husband. I made it very clear that I wasn’t interested in a relationship unless my dad took responsibility for his behavior and apologized. My dad has made zero effort on that front (and my mother supports him). We recently spoke for the first time in a year and he screamed at me and threatened to write me out of his will. Um….I had already assumed that would happen when I stopped having a relationship with you? Basically my dad seems to think I still need him enough to excuse and put up with his crap behavior, even though I’m doing quite well without him. He keeps insisting my husband is a loser and saying we would be doing “better in life” if we just did things his way, even though we are overall in as good a place or better (depending on what you look at) than my parents were at the same age! I think the BRF is the same, they don’t want to believe that Harry can be happy without them so instead they are ignoring the evidence, painting Meghan as a fame hungry controlling harpy, and believing that Harry might actually be willing to respond to their “punishments”. It doesn’t make sense, unless you live in their alternative reality.

    • @Cate
      I’m proud of you. That is not easy and takes a lot of strength.

  5. Lizzie says:

    I’m reading that there aren’t enough royals and these honors might not be given to anyone. I think the patronage’s have turned down the replacements.
    Successfully redirecting the tabloids away from HRH Andrew on his birthday.

    • Amy Too says:

      I think this is why sussexit and everything that caused it was partly pushed by petulant William and jealous Kate, and that the Queen just sort of went along with it and let her courtiers deal with it despite not really wanting it, and Charles was probably opposed to it completely but also just sort of went along with it because he’s a coward and hopes he can “fix” everything later when he’s King. What is the plan now for Charles’ reign? He wanted it to be himself and Camilla, William and Kate, Harry and Meghan. With Harry and Meghan doing most of the work, honestly. The Queen has 4 kids doing most of the work (minus Andrew recently). They will die or retire very soon. There was already not enough royals to replace them all. Now there are even less royals. The monarchy and its influence and what it does is just going to get smaller and smaller and smaller as the generations go on. Charles will have William and Kate. William will have Kate. That’s it. What is the plan!? Does William intend to make Carole and Mike and Pippa and her husband, and James and his gf working royals? Elevate them all to dukedoms and send Duchess Pippa out for engagements? Is he going to send his kids out early? Because he has historically been very fussy about using his kids and wanting them to have a long childhood away from the cameras. That’s already changing though.

      Should have thought about all this ahead of time. They are too stupid to live.

      • MadamNoir24 says:

        Honestly, Amy, I think that’s exactly what he, kate, and especially Carol wants for her family to be elevated to dukedoms. I will not be in the least bit surprised if William gave the Middleton’s dukedoms when he becomes Prince of Wales. And they will start doing “work” for the firm. I put nothing past William and Kate.

      • Nic919 says:

        There are a ton of more senior dukedoms and none of them pretend to be royal. The Middletons will never be accepted in this way.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Regarding the dukedom and Middleton.
        This has been floated by the Middleton clan since Kate was engaged.
        That the wife of the heir needed titled parents. That the fffk George needed titled grandparents.

        They’ve been so thirsty for those titles for so long.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Queen Mother’s family was never raised to a dukedom. True they were Scottish earls, but there is no modern precedent to simply provide a dukedom to the family of the consort just because. We aren’t in the Middle Ages anymore.

      • Novice says:

        Inheritable peers are long done. The Middletons won’t get dukedom or whatever. British public’s backlash will make sure of it. I would be surprised if they even get a baronetsy, which make the title-holder an inheritable Sir. The last baronetsy was bestowed upon Mrs Thatcher’s husband, because she was elevated to a life baroness and the Queen made sure her offspring can inherit the title. But Mrs Thatcher’s contribution to the Kingdom was immence. What have the Middletons ever done?

  6. LaraK says:

    Harry will do to us his work with the Military through the invictus games. Those are very much his legacy. What has William ever done that wasn’t handed to him??

    And have you seen the rage over the “Service is universal” response? Please write about that. The royal brigade is losing their freaking minds!

    – it’s disrespectful to the queen (Hah!)

    – there’s a difference between public service and philanthropy

    – H&M can’t be in service and line their pockets at the same time – I found this especially egregious since the queen and Charles actually change laws to suit their income!

    – and as always, William is incandescent with rage

    Over at the DAily Fail it’s an absolute circus of crazy!

    • Over it says:

      This makes me laugh, I saw a clip of some old ass fart on bbc loosing his hanging nuts because Harry and Meghan said service is universal.He better breathe because no one will be calling in the queens doctors to save his racist ass.

      • February-Pisces says:

        That guy and the rest of the royal mafia have just slapped their own subjects in the face by implying that peasants don’t serve like the royals. Just think of all those who risk their lives everyday for public service. Are they suppose to think the royals serve compared to them? No the royals get paid millions of pounds of tax payer money to live in luxury and in exchange they occasionally come out and wave and cut ribbons.

      • Couch potato says:

        I watched a documentary on Dianas interview a couple of weeks ago. The “old established asses” condemnd her for it on every channel, while the public were in rage over the Windsors treatement of her. More than 20 years later, absolutely nothing has changed in those circles! It’s rather scary and creepy to see how history repeat itself. I’m glad they live far away from that bunch.

      • Amy Too says:

        And hasn’t the only thing that most of the royals been doing recently is basically “thanking people for their service”? Doctors and nurses, teachers, frontline workers? They have literally just been zooming around to thank people for their service. And now the talking point is that peasant service isn’t actually service and it’s somehow completely different (in a bad way) to the real service that the royals do? Are you kidding me? Stop contradicting yourselves and stop telling on yourselves! You’re making yourselves looks extremely disingenuous and fake every time you zoom to “thank” people.

        Apparently spending thousands of taxpayer dollars on outfits and headbands to virtually thank someone for 5 minutes while having to read “thank you” off of your cue card is way, way more important than being a nurse working 12+ hour shifts day after day for nearly a year, literally risking your life every time you go to work, having to watch thousands of people die, and then having to go home to your RV in the driveway because you don’t want to infect your children.

      • JT says:

        @Amytoo Exactly. All of their work during this pandemic has been thanking people for their service. That’s it. Nothing concrete or tangible. Than the queen makes that ridiculous statement. Those gold standard advisors and every royal who listens to them look like fools. No wonder H&M sidestepped them at every turn. It’s complete amateur hour.

    • Nic919 says:

      The reason why “service is universal” is upsetting the Royal sycophants is because everyone who does volunteer work without taxpayer funded castles and clothing allowances are doing true service. The royals aren’t serving anyone but themselves and the pandemic has exposed the scam more than it ever has. Who is making the UK work during this crisis? First line workers, teachers, delivery people… not the royals. And yet it is that family that gets access to live in castles and get a sovereign grant. I mean there has been no tourism this year because of covid, so are the royals going to get a pay cut for not bringing the money that the royalists claim they do for tourism? No one trying to survive day to day right now gives a shit about zoom calls or the one speech the Queen gave. The family is useless and it’s getting harder and harder to justify why so many of them are in the dole with special privileges.

      • Becks1 says:

        Agree with you both Nic and AmyToo – that line strikes a huge nerve because it brings up the discussion of what service actually is, and whether what the royals do is “public service” or not.

        I think that’s been one of the reasons the royals are freaking out so much over H&M leaving. They don’t want people asking “well if Harry could earn his own way, why are we supporting Louis?” They don’t want people asking “but why exactly am I paying for Kate to have another new dress?” They don’t want people asking “and what exactly is it that you do here?” Their existence at this point depends on people not asking too many questions and on people just taking them at face value. And when I say “existence” I don’t mean the end of the monarchy, I mean more the end of the royal family as we know it in terms of public support and funding etc.

      • Chartreuse says:

        Nic I do about 120-150 hours of volunteer work a year outside of my regular family /work life and I got a bright orange t-shirt! Maybe Kate would like one? Lol

    • Liz version 700 says:

      Meghan and another woman of color AOC seem to have a gift for making old white farts loose their minds by simply existing and not caring who “your father is” my goodness it is fun to watch

  7. Sofia says:

    As I’ve said time and time again, this hurts the patronages more than anything. And these patronages might not even get picked up by anybody except the military titles according to a Times/Telegraph (can’t remember which) article.

  8. Petra says:

    My 80 years old mom interpretation of the “life of public service” makes sense to me. Public service should not be read to mean the general public as a whole but the monarchy. The BRF sees itself as a public institution hence the public they speak about is itself. The Queen, Charles, William , George and the future first born of George constitutes the public in their mind.

    • Drun says:

      Could be, but if so, a poorly written statement.

      • Petra says:

        Yes! The courtiers should not have written the released statement. An outside PR company with fresh eyes would know that line would backfire.

    • Lizzie says:

      Maria Shriner;
      Indeed, service is universal. You don’t have to be working Royals to serve. Millions of people serve every day. Just look at Texas & what’s happening right now in our country. Service doesn’t require titles. It requires empathy, compassion, desire & drive.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        And Shriver has a no pleb about this topic. Her family has lived a life of public service for generations and while you can argue they are American royalty they have no royal titles.

        Meghan and Harry are well on their way to becoming an international power couple. The BRF blew it.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Royals are public servants in the same way that other government workers are. H&M gave up public service to go into private philanthropy. So, they are still serving the public, but aren’t public servants.

      • JT says:

        Why are RR and royalists always parsing over words? Can anybody answer that? There is always a technicality that is brought up that somehow is supposed to vindicate them. They are the most “well actually” people I’ve ever seen. Well actually the monarchy is public. Well actually Meg’s BC wasn’t “dictated”. Well actually they knew about the interview, just not the announcement. It so dumb. It the RF is beyond reproach why all the parsing of over technicalities and choice of verbiage. And it’s a bit rich for the queen to say that Harry isn’t cut out for a life of public service when he literally served and put his life on the line for public service. The queen’s statement was a barb (as she intended like the wreath) and we know it. She is petty and always has been. She’s still protecting Andrew and HIS public service by not allowing HIS patronages to drop him. She’s merely putting his military honors on hold, not stripping them. The well actuallys happening now are because they are feeling the heat and getting dragged.

      • Petra says:

        This is what my granny meant (she is not a royalist). She also think the BRF seeing themselves as public servants is self serving too because their wealth (the crown’s wealth) is not considered public funds.

    • PETRA (#8) ———. COMMENT: My 80 years old mom interpretation of the “life of public service” makes sense to me. Public service should not be read to mean the general public as a whole but the monarchy. The BRF sees itself as a public institution hence the public they speak about is itself. The Queen, Charles, William , George and the future first born of George constitutes the public in their mind.

      RESPONSE with Tin Foil hat on:
      If that’s truly the “definition”, then what does that definition say about the service of the rest of the “non-senior” Royals such as Anne, Edward and Sophie, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, etc? Sorry, I think the Queen’s definition is what most of us think it is: It’s everyone in the royal family EXCEPT Harry and Megan.

      • Petra says:

        @Lowcountry Lady, your response proves this point. Anne, Edward, Sophie, etc are all serving the monarchy. Their lives are controlled by the monarchy, unfortunately they have accepted being subservient as their lot in life.
        The great thing about Harry and Meghan (as well as Dianna) is that they knew their lives mattered. Harry and Meghan are leaders, they’re showing the next generation of royal children a better way to be. George, Charlotte, Louie, August, and Edward children all will know life is possible outside the BRF. I bet you everyone of those older members of BRF had thought of leaving but felt they would not survive without the monarchy. I’m extremely proud of Harry and Meghan.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The monarchy and the working royals are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. Current flock of Windsors doesn’t understand this.

    • Kalana says:

      A public institution that exempts itself from the UK version of FOI requests. Convenient.

  9. February-Pisces says:

    Of course they are happy, they actually have patrons who are effective and actually work and will visit more than once every 8 years.

    Anyway in other news has anyone seen the cover of In Touch mag, they have Willie on the cover and the actually mention ‘his mistress’ rose? Wtf? Luckily for Willie no one ever pays attention to In Touch, but it’s still out there.

    Also is other news, I saw that Caroline flacks ex boyf (not the last one, but a previous one) outed desperate dirty Dan Wootton and the evil sex predator monster that he is. He wrote a pretty long message, but he mentioned how dangerous he is and that he’s basically Harvey Weinstein. Sussex squad on twitter haven’t picked it up yet, so please spread the word lol.

    • Yoyo says:

      I saw that last week, he called Dan a groomer. who is that tubby, sweaty RR that is almost bursting out of the television screen? Can’t wait for someone to out him.

      • February-Pisces says:

        He’s so f*cking disgusting but he won’t get cancelled, his behaviour will be covered up and ignored.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Dan W is a predator? Details! I don’t have Twitter.

      And I love the public show of support for HandM while also directly shunning the queen’s actions.

      • February-Pisces says:

        He (Caroline flacks ex Andrew) basically called him a sexual predator who uses his power and position to hurt people to get what he wants. He then used the hashtag #nonce and compared him to Harvey Weinstein. He said people were too scared to speak out against him, but that he had nothing to lose.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Have at it Sussex Squad!
        Oh wow, we knew he was awful, but that’s bad.

    • Izzy says:

      I just read the full message he posted. His pain is visceral, it really comes through in what he wrote. I took screenshots of all of it in case it’s taken down too, because I am petty like that.

      He mentions the initials A.L. as someone Wootton wronged. Anyone know who it is?

      • February-Pisces says:

        I don’t know. But I had a look at Andrew’s insta and it’s pretty sad. He posted screen grabs of the Sun’s headlines about Caroline, including the one where they pictured a bloodied mattress after that incident with the boyf. It was to imply ‘how violent she was to her boyfriend’ but the blood was actually from her own hand which she cut. It’s pretty f*cking awful, It makes me so mad, but I can’t imagine what it would be like if these evil trash-loids actually took the life of someone I actually knew and cared about.

    • Amy Too says:

      I’m trying to Google the cover of In Touch to see the William’s mistress thing but I can’t find it. Where did you see it?

  10. harla says:

    Funny that according to the queen the only people who can do “public service” work are those who are paid a lavish lifestyle by the taxpayers. By her standards anyone not being paid for their public service is doing it wrong.

    The queen is getting dragged all over twitter for this stupid announcement.

  11. Kyliegirl says:

    I do feel bad that the patronages got caught in the firing line. The line about life of public service is laughable. The Monarchy only cares about the Monarchy and everything they do is about keeping it going. The type of self serving volunteerism all the RR are accusing H&M of doing. Members of the RF just show up to the patronages to wave and “learn” more about them and then never do anything with what they ‘learned.” As Jose Andres said this week, H&M want to get actively involved. They have both demonstrated this long before they left. Charities they get involved with benefit from the raised profile, but also because H&M do more once they leave. They have put many of the charities in touch with each other and they have worked out how they can support each other to provide more services to their clients and share funds. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see this happening with those giving a lifetime of service.

  12. Elizabeth says:

    This “family” is horrible!!! If I were Harry and Meghan I would burn every bridge and then I would just erase them completely from my life (no statements, nothing, erased! just because I couldn’t deal). No one should be supporting any of them while they protect Andrew, including Eugenie! He’s not some sweet old grandpa, he’s literally freakin wanted by the FBI.

  13. SarahCS says:

    Suck it BRF and RR.

    I follow Smart Works on IG and their ‘she got the job’ posts always make me smile. As will getting to wear my two M&S dresses from the Smart Set collection she did with them once we can leave the house again!

    On a bit of a tangent I have also started ordering brownies from Luminary Bakery who did their wedding cake and offer training and support to disadvantaged women. A friend who got them for her birthday last year said they were the best brownies she has ever eaten so British CB’s I recommend if you’re after a tasty gift with a side of ‘public service’.

    • Yoyo says:

      Claire Ptak from Violet Bakery in Hackney baked their wedding cake, and another Claire was the caterer of the evening reception.

  14. Edna says:

    Maria Shriver agreed with the Sussexes:
    The Kennedy family is an excellent example of wealthy people knowing and commiting to a life of public service.

  15. Amy Bee says:

    The Rugby Football League is upset that they lost Harry as a patron and wanted to continue working with him.

  16. Elvie says:

    The big difference between the National Theatre and Mayhew/SmartWorks is that they applied at some point to receive a royal patron.

    So The National Theatre, Rugby, etc., get a royal patron no matter what, but obviously have other donors and patrons. Mayhew and SmartWorks are “private” because Meghan chose them independently.

    I don’t think Kate has private patronages. It always seems like the Queen has to foist patronages on her anytime they get Kate in a room with the Queen and Prince Philip.

    • Nic919 says:

      Kate only ever got assigned patronages because she doesn’t actually care about service. She was jobless in her 20s and while she had time to vacation multiple times a year, she did nothing regarding volunteer work. And she hasn’t changed. She still does the bare minimum.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Kate took almost a year to pick a handful of patronages for herself (staff picked for her), most of which are now in financial trouble because she does nothing for them. The ones she does things for, like Wimbledon (from the Queen) or the yachting one (one she picked herself), are because they are fun things disguised as ‘work’.

  17. Willow says:

    Does ‘public service’ have a different meaning in the UK then in the US? The way the Queen says it, she’s saying only royalty, people of a certain status, can ‘serve the public’. But in the US ‘public service’ is done by anyone who ‘serves’, for their country or other people, public service is giving up money, safety, time, to benefit others. The Queen and royals do not have exclusive control over ‘public service’ and it’s insulting for them to even imply it.

    • mynameispearl says:

      I’d expect public service to be by a government employee (like a public servant/ civil servant).

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Then pay them a civil servant salary.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Agreed, Wiglet Watcher. The UK can keep a monarchy AND drastically reduce the costs. Start with strict security and clothing budgets, annual work minimums, and annual reviews by an independent body. Remove the Freedom from Information status from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, rip open the Sovereign Grant for annual review. And require all security and staff costs at the private estates be paid by the Windsors privately.

    • Ann says:

      I think it must. Public Service, to me, implies a broad possible range of vocations and actions. Politicians are technically public servants but too many don’t act like it (Ted Cruz, for example). People who work for government and civil institutions. But honestly, to me, front line workers are public servants, teachers can be, people who run impactful charities or work for them. Anyone who spends a good chunk of their time helping others, really.

      • JT says:

        The royals’ definition of service is so narrow and that is the most offensive to me. What’s even more bothersome is that most of the people don’t have billions in the bank or castles as rewards for their service. The RFs deal with the public isn’t altruistic, they are handsomely rewarded and protected (Andrew). At least Harry was making the most of his role within the royal family. He’s truly given back and used his position to help others: Invictus Games, Sentabale, Endeavor Fund, etc. This whole business is so insulting towards him.

  18. ABritGuest says:

    Apparently some of the patronage’s didn’t even know they would be removed as patrons. I don’t think the rugby is happy because Harry was very involved and they wanted him as a face for the World Cup happening soon. Plus apparently there aren’t even enough royals that can step up. In addition some of the charities said they wanted them to stay on eg Meghan with National Theatre. With them having a US arm would have been a good fit but oh well.

    I do think move was out of spite because when Sussexit first happened it was said that they would keep the patronage’s and it was only the military associations that were stripped. So something seems to have changed. At this point everything the firm does out of spite works out for the best so sure this will too. And honestly probably better the less connections they have with the firm& less the grey men have to hold over their heads or brief to their tabloid buddies.

  19. Louise177 says:

    I doubt that Harry and Meghan were shocked and hurt about the patronages. When they stepped down I’m sure this was brought up and throughout the year. Maybe some hope they could be kept but I’m sure Harry and Meghan knew it was highly likely they would be taken away. I am baffled that QE made it sound only the Royals can live in service. That’s a poor comment and right of them to say something about it. Of course they’re getting raked over the coals for it.

    • As Harry said in Jan 2020, [he] “was prepared to give up EVERYTHING.” And, everything is what they’ve given up. Harry had already faced the fact that the Queen could and would probably take everything even before he and Meghan were forced to announce their step down due to KP leak to Wooten and Wooten threatening to publish if he didn’t get an official quote from Harry. Rather than give in to Wooten’s threat, the Sussexes made the announcement in order to take control of the narrative away from KP. This all came out at the time in numerous follow-up articles, but the 👑🐀Rota chose to ignore the whole KP/Wooten threat and created the story that the Sussexes disrespected the Queen by going public before anything was settled. Happily, the Sussexes are thriving, not just surviving!

    • Sarah says:

      You are correct, according to Omid, they had the final discussion in November so there were no surprises are either side.

  20. Libby says:

    Can someone give me an explainer on patronages? What is it that a Royal does if they “have” one?

    • Amy Too says:

      I think if you have a royal patron, it’s mostly for publicity and fundraising, as in: see? This royal supports us! You can have the royal attend fundraisers so that people will want to come and see the royal. Maybe you can use the royal’s name and picture in your fundraising emails and on your website. The royal will come and visit their patronage, thus bringing additional media attention to your charity. It’s mostly just about having a high-profile supporter who will cape for your charity. Some do it better than others. They might just visit or zoom once every 8 years (Kate), or they might post about you on social media and come up with fundraising projects and spend a lot of time behind the scenes helping you and connecting you with wealthy people who might want to donate or help and other charities and resources that you could partner with (Meghan).

      • SORRY, I meant this as a follow-up to IZZY comment (#21) below.

        I always wondered, which FRIEND OF KATE the National Theatre leaker is. When the first leak surfaced in March 2020, there was a quote from the National Theatre official spokesperson countering that Daily Mail article with a statement that they were happy and honored to have Meghan as their patron and “that particular Board member did NOT speak for the organization.” Methinks, the Board member is some over privileged, white Aristo with strong ties to William or Kate.

      • Lady D says:

        Might also be your average garden variety racist at play too.

  21. Izzy says:

    Well, given that there is probably another Global Sussex Baby Shower coming up, these remaining organizations will be delighted that they kept the Sussexes as patrons. In a year or two, the difference will become starkly apparent to even the public when the other royal patronages don’t thrive nearly as well. Too bad. I’m glad Meghan doesn’t have to deal with that twunt from the National Theater who was always leaking like a sieve to the press.

  22. Carmen-Jamrock says:

    Monday March 8, 2021
    BIG NewsDrop from the Sussexes

    Keep your eyes on archewellDOTcom on Monday Mar 8 or any any time following the end of the Oprah interview.
    There will be many clues in the interview but the details will be on the site.

    If u recall: it was imm after the Time 100 interview that archewell went live and all the clues regarding the folks they were partnering with were mentioned in the Time100 interview.

    I also expect that a major Sussex UK charity initiative will be revealed. (NB: not “announced” but revealed.)

    But all of these announcements might hinge on wht happens wth Phillip this wk.

    PS: I believe H&M were being polite & respectful re their reluctant decision to agree wth BP et al to wait a yr while these inept, ancient palace servants decided if a “new, progressive role” could be crafted and made to fit in that crumbling institution. But alas. As H&M suspected, the BRF isnt ready for the 21st Century.

  23. Ohlala says:

    Hey I am not on Twitter can someone tell me what the reactions are?

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Edna above posted a twitter link where you can read a few regarding Shriver’s comment. It’s all the tip of the iceberg of support.

    • Lady D says:

      I’m not a member of Twitter either, but you can google some of them, or I guess probably most of them. Just put SussexSquad Twitter or Buckingham Palace Twitter, or alleged pedo Dan Wooten Twitter into google and an option to clk on their Twitter feeds is usually first up.

  24. Bettyrose says:

    The RF is quite keen to make themselves obsolete, aren’t they?

  25. aquarius64 says:

    Once again the Windsors didn’t read the room and it’s blowing up like an ACME dynamite kit. If they thought the other charities would drop the Sussexes because they had the royal patronages taken the grey men were mistaken. Bill upset about Harry’s attitude? He’s upset the pressure is really on him to show he is worthy to be head of state. I bet the queen and Charles are driving the point home especially the queen. Grampa Bertie had to step up to become George VI when Edward VIII stepped down. I know the situations aren’t the same but dollar bet the queen laid into Willie how she had to prepare to be queen at a young age. Bill had more than enough time to ready himself for his eventual (?) ascension but I think the absence of the Sussexes will show Bill is not ready for primetime.

    • JT says:

      For all of William’s whining about Harry’s life and choices, he’d better be ready to become the “global statesman” the British media have made him out to be. He and Kate wanted the spotlight, they wanted to be the only “young” royals, so claim that spotlight. Put in the work. I think the RR and public are in for a rude awakening when they find that the keens aren’t up to the task. (They never were). The pressure is on to deliver especially when Harry and Meghan are truly up and running with Archewell. We’ll see what the “saviors of the monarchy” will do.

      • Harla says:

        Oh I think the RRs already know that W&K aren’t up to the task hence all the ridiculous embiggening stories. The RRs know that they have backed the losing horse but can’t let anyone know without looking stupid.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate and William are too old to still be this bad at their job. Most adults in their late 30s have because proficient in their career skills and these two keep pretending to still be learning because they just are useless.

      • RoyalBlue says:

        Around a week ago William had a chat with John Kerry and it barely caused a ripple in the news.

  26. Cecilia says:

    “in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service.” OK so why does andrew still have all of his patronages? Why can prince michael of kent hold honorary military ranks while not being a working royal?

    Fact that Buckingham Palace blatantly LIED really is not getting enough attention

  27. Catherine says:

    It’s easy, charities have many patrons. They sometimes have a board of directors and a president of that board. But there is only ONE Royal Patron, and TQ decides which member of her family gets to be the designated Royal Patron of any given charity, organization. That family member is specifically representing The Queen. PH and MM can be private patrons to all of these charities, they just won’t be representing The Queen anymore. And, they will still continue to support the charities they have privately supported outside of TBRF. Like Smart Works.

    I don’t see the big deal, either way. Lord knows, there are many charities that need all the help they can get.

  28. gm says:

    Those who do service aka “volunteer” work when it is not volunteer, they wouldn’t do it if their employer didn’t provide the time/ set it up, or in the royals case support them for doing it, it is not really volunteer/ service if you are benefitting financially from it. Royals are the like the CEOs of certain non- profits who make a lot of money/ benefits, they always argue they are worth it because if they went to the profit sector that is the going rate for a CEO, but get real it is completely different. Same with the royals lets see if they make that kind of money on their own AND do charity/ volunteer work. M & H are now, but Edward and Sophie couldn’t pull it off. I don’t know if Zara and her brother are doing it. Aren’t Margaret’s children doing pretty well?

  29. JT says:

    Prince Harry: “I was born into a life of duty, but it was during my decade in the Army that I committed to a life of service.” Harry is in it for the long haul. He knows the difference. He and Meghan don’t have to be volunteering now. They don’t have to be building a foundation. After stepping down they could have just vacationed for the rest of their lives. They could have just disappeared. They certainly have the money to do so. Instead they are choosing to build Archewell and help people regardless of their titles or royal status, not out of duty but for the love of service.

    • Amy Too says:

      And they’re even tying service and charitable causes into their paid work with Netflix and Spotify and the speaking agency. They’re not going to be making soap opera like reality shows that exploit people for Netflix, they’ll be making documentaries about causes and charities and shows that have a particular cause at the heart of them. Their podcast isn’t just them trying out new bath products while they gossip about celebrity divorces, they’re talking about the issues they care about, having guests on who are informed and making a difference, introducing people to charities and other do-gooders. The BRF seems to think that when they’re hired for speeches it’s all going be like “Listen to Meghan complain in detail about every courtier by name” or “Harry will give a photographical tour of the inside of the Queen’s personal residences using never before seen family photos taken during intimate family holidays.” No. It’s going to be uplifting speeches like Meghan gave to her alma mater about BLM and going into the world maybe scared but willing and ready to do good. Or talks about toxic media and how to do better. Even in their money-making business deals, they’re still focusing on charity. They’re not shilling milk or gin or acting as sponsors for certain sporting and horsey products.

      • JT says:

        I wanted to say all of this but you’ve said it better. H&M are going to be royalling better than the royals do. They will have a greater impact and provide tangible results. I guess this is the fear talking, which is why the RAF haven been trying to “clip their wings”from the get go. They know what Harry and Meghan can do. Look what they’ve done within the constraints and smearing of the monarchy. Losing the patronages might hurt but they will be gaining so much more. Now they have no strings holding them back. I am truly excited for them and their work. It will be impossible for the Windsors to avoid the comparisons and come out looking good.

      • Mustlovedogs says:

        Here here #Amy Too and JT. I work for the ‘public service’ in my country for people with disabilities -for not a lot of money… I also have a son with several severe disabilities and I care for him too. As I’ve done for 30 years. I’ve had to give up paid work as he needs me now as he’s very ill In hospital. But I still salute and admire the nurses and allied health staff who put in 1000% a day to support my son (and me) in a stressed and underfunded system. We laughed and joked and had fun over home made scones and weak hospital tea today to try and deal with the fact that most of our little party would never walk again, or be independent in their lives. Yet there was so much love. Because you can’t fake that with a ‘patronage’. What M and H do is real. It comes from a place of love and true caring.
        TQ and her version of Public Service can go jump.
        (Sorry. Bad day )

  30. Harla says:

    I’m so excited to see what Meghan and her charities/ causes are able to accomplish! Great things are coming and I’m 100% here for it!

  31. grabbyhands says:

    I don’t follow the royals much, so this move by QE really puzzles me because it seems like a really poor PR move – granted opinions on Harry and Meghan vary wildly, but it seems like worldwide they at least have much more goodwill so it would have seemed obvious that it would backfire. ( I just used the word seems a lot :|)

    Particularly the military patronages – like, Harry actual served and saw active duty so taking those away seems like a huge slap in the face not only to him, but to all veterans. I mean, the Invictus Games are HIS creation! I’m glad they and some of these other charities are publicly thanking and acknowledging them and their continued support.

  32. Chelsea says:

    I find it interesting that we haven’t heard anything at all from the ACU over the past week. Even the initial leak story about this mentioned the National Theatre(which i am so glad Meghan is free from) but not the ACU(which she seemed to have a lot of passion for and a good relationship with).The ACU’s secretary general said at Meghan’s last event in the UK(which was poignantly with the ACU) how happy they were to have a patron whose visits were talked about not for what they wore or how quick they dashed in or out but for the way they highlighted the work being done by the ACU. I really can not see her being happy if they get stuck with Kate who is known for dipping in and out of engagements quickly and not doing background research before showing up. Maybe they will give it to Sophie?

    I really can’t see any of these commonwealth orgs happy with getting William and Kate who didnt even start showing up regularly to the Commonwealth services until Meghan came along. (Remember when they both skipped in 2017 and William got caught partying it up with ski bunnies while he was wife was at home with their kids?)

    Also: these statements from Harry and Meghan’s private charities make it clear how terrible and ill thought BP’s statement was. Like you’re really going to tell Harry who served for 10 years in the army and created multiple charities for service members and veterans that he can’t live a life of service if he is no longer a taxpayer funded royal? Here’s a great video of some veterans defending Harry and thanking him for his work supporting veterans here:

    • JT says:

      As of H&M’s engagement they were still part time royals. They didn’t really do anything until Meghan showed up and they didn’t do anything afterwards. They only thing that changed was the press around their work shyness. Harry had just left the military and was establishing IG. Meghan and Harry filled a void: charismatic, interesting, engaged, and hard working. The keens were just surprised at quickly the public took to them, especially Meghan and thus the “competition”began.

      And how can the queen go on about the diversity of the commonwealth as positive when they couldn’t even appreciate the only diverse member within their family? It’s completely hypocritical and absurd. Will and Kate should be kept away from those positions.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I truly think that Kate only ever thought her job was to get dressed up & get photographed. I don’t believe she ever thought it was more than that–just get photographed ‘caring’. Nope, I’m going to correct myself, I think she only ever thought about the gown & tiara events.

      • Kalana says:

        I think Kate views herself as a royalist content creator, not a charity supporter. Once you look at her behavior through that lens, it starts to make sense. Even skipping visiting the Irish Guards. She felt like she had given the papers enough content at the time.

        Kate is a royalist influencer same as any other influencer shilling Flat Tummy Tea on Instagram.

  33. Thanks Chelsea, I watched that ForcesNews Twitter and it was great. Scrolling down to look at some of the comments, I found this.

    I highly recommend going to this site and listening to this: All I got is WOWZA!

    “James O’Brien reveals the ‘most insightful’ commentary on Harry and Meghan
    19 February 2021, 15:02 | Updated: 19 February 2021, 15:10”

    • Bettyrose says:

      Ooof. That is powerful. And more over made me realize that concern for Megan’s safety is not unwarranted. Brexit was a loud declaration of loyalty to “blood & birth” by a large swath, adding real weight to these observations.

    • Kyle Owens says:

      @ low country. That has to be the most inciteful explanation I’ve run across regarding the hysterical reactions to the Harry and Meg marriage.

  34. Livvy says:

    I’ve lurked here a while and really enjoy the discourse but as a British person involved in the theatre world we have been absolutely on our knees as a result of COVID and there’s been literally crickets from Meghan. Not a single word of help or support so why on earth should she keep a patronage she has done the bare minimum for

    • Lady D says:

      Isn’t that how all the royals operate? However Meghan usually has tangible results for her charities, not sure why she would abandon theatre as she has made clear how much it means to her? Have any of your other patrons been able to affect a change for theatre workers?

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      I’m not sure what she’s done for it, but I’m wondering…
      Is it that she hasn’t done anything or they did not allow her to do anything. Of all her patronages this is the one that has leaked negative stories and have shown little interest in working with her. I’m only saying this to the higher ups. Not the ones that are suppose to benefit by this organization.

    • Lanie says:

      Dunno. Let’s ask Wills and Kate about why they keep patronage’s they do nothing for, some of which shut down.

      Better still, let’s ask Andrew.

    • Carmen-Jamrock says:

      This is either willfil blindness or lies. The Nat Theatre itself thanked M for the work she’s done for communities in which the NT wks. See their statement.
      The fact tht u might like going to the theatre doesnt mean tht ur “involved in the theatre” & it def doesnt mean tht u know whts happenjng within the NT.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        It doesn’t have to be either willful blindness or lies. I didn’t even know and my lack of awareness on this matter was neither. I just didn’t know.

    • Kalana says:

      The National Theatre is the only patronage that has ever shown negativity towards Meghan so I was surprised that they were also disappointed and wanted to stay.

      Charles did something with them right? I wonder if Charles or the Cambridges want that patronage and might have have lobbied to block her. Meghan was clearly gearing up to do more there at the begining of 2020.

    • Ginger says:

      Well that’s interesting Livy considering they wanted her to stay on as a patron and were the ONLY patronage that leaked negative stories (which is incredibly unprofessional). Meghan wasn’t a patron for very long but had plenty of meetings with them both private and public. I think she did a good job considering how short of a time she was a patron. I will laugh so hard if it’s Kate.

    • Nic919 says:

      I look forward to your letter to EACH demanding Kate’s removal because she has failed to do any fundraising and they needed to hire Ed Sheeran and assistance from Rose Chomondoley to raise funds. While you expect Meghan to open the theatres despite a global pandemic with theatres closed all over the world (except Australia) surely the young children of East Anglia also deserve a patron who actually does something for them and doesn’t take credit for the obvious work of others. Alas it is too late for the Art Room, as that has been closed due to its royal patron not providing any assistance.

    • Amy Too says:

      I think the theatre is a tricky patronage, especially during a pandemic. Because a lot of it is about being on the ground at the theatre or encouraging people to go to the theatre. It’s not like she can encourage people to go to the theatre in a pandemic, or post online about upcoming shows, or even attend upcoming shows. Because things are pretty locked down. Does the National Theatre have a charitable/fundraising aspect to it that she could’ve raised money for? Or is just more of like a “culture” patronage, to show that the royals appreciate the theatre and find it important? Are people who work in the theatre able to collect unemployment money or get pandemic relief funds or are they all laid off with no money that she could’ve advocated for or raised money for? But then that’s pretty political and outside the scope of a royal patron. I’m just trying to think of what she could actually do virtually, from across the world, during a pandemic for a patronage that is very much about coming to see something in person. It seems like Harry and Meghan did the biggest projects with their non-royal patronages which makes me wonder if being a specifically ROYAL patron means you’re meant to be less involved in the actual day to day workings of the patronage? Or maybe she had something big planned with them that had to be put on hold because it couldn’t be done virtually or wouldn’t have the same effect if she wasn’t there in person? What were you hoping she would do?

  35. Sof says:

    I don’t have anything new to add but wanted to leave a positive comment because I read a few horrible things on twitter regarding this, looking down at Meghan’s work and efforts and I’m tired.
    I’m glad these organizations decided to keep working with them!

  36. Phoenix says:

    Yeah, same here. I see a major meltdown of the Keens orcs and I am tired by their hateful comments.
    I am happy that Sussex’s patronages gave such a positive feedback about their work! I hope we will see more from them!

    • Kalana says:

      They’ll never be happy because their joy comes from hurting and attacking Harry and Meghan. It’s lowering the tone across the board in royalist world from the actual BRF to the Rota to the royalist fan base. It’s creepy and dysfunctional.

      There’s going to be a backlash against the Tories and the Matt Hancock scandal and Boris and the Murdoch network and the Establishment. We’re getting the toxicity of it through these racist attacks on Meghan but I think there is a much bigger reaction going on.

      And true to form, William has picked the wrong side.

  37. Christine says:

    It is so lovely to see how much these organizations mean to Meghan and Harry, and how much they mean to their charities. I feel for the ones the queen took back, this is a rough time for any non-profit, much less losing the Duke and Duchess.

    Stupid queen.

  38. Noor says:

    The Palace posted a skewed statement on public service and got roasted for it. Service is what people do in their jobs as well as in their volunteer work. The royals do not have a monopoly over public service.

    However Prince Harry should put this behind him and accept the Palace decision to take back all his honorary military appointments

    A more troubling development is an article printed in the Daily Mail asking Prince Harry to remove himself from the line of succession. The Palace should nip this in the bud.

  39. booboocita says:

    I don’t believe for a hot minute that the RRs will give up covering the Sussexes, but I’m very interested to see how they’ll justifycontinuing to do so. Can’t harsh on them for living off of taxpayers, can’t criticize for not serving the Crown’s interests, can’t complain that they’re not living in the UK. By the Palace’s own admission, they’re cut off (even with that mealymouthed “they’re still much loved” statement). So what will the story be? “Ten years out, and the Sussexes are still irrelevant” as Harry, Meghan and their children travel to Stockholm to accept a Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Archewell?

  40. Shannon says:

    No one really cares anymore!

    The wedding and honeymoon are over. It’s sink or swim. Meghan should have stayed in the UK, but she did not want to because the press in that country is vicious. The royal family are fodder and they have been for nearly 300 years. I think she thought she could change that, but even Di couldn’t do that. She shouldn’t have expected more.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I think the Sussexes realized that long before the royal family did. They all need to move forward. Meghan didn’t expect more, she expected basic decency and support as part of a unit. How far would the attacks on her escalate, and what was the end goal? A journalist mentioned on a podcast today that the press wrote what they wrote about her, the lies and attacks, because those at the top condoned it, and the palace contributed to the harassment. This was calculated. There is nothing she could have done, her husband wanted to protect her and their child, and his own family didn’t respect or trust him enough with his choice. This was untenable. The Royal family decided to start this and it became an avalanche. They should be happy they got their kingdom back.

      • Shannon says:

        Why in the world would she expect that?! Did she not read Di’s unauthorized/authorized biography? Did she not watch the movies? Expecting basic decency…lol. From the royal family??? I’m sure Anne was thinking the same thing!

      • Lemons says:

        I think Meghan was living her own version of “Get Out,” where everyone was nice at the beginning, but little by little, microaggressions started to creep through until the RR and BRF had mounted a full-on war. They were all out for blood.

        As a team, the Sussexes knew they were a success. As an entity in the BRF, they were made to feel as if they were wrong and out of place. Harry obviously thought things would be different from Diana, but underestimated his brother’s wrath, his father’s jealousy and cowardice, and the Queen’s pettiness.