Tominey: ‘The Sussexes do not seem to understand what public service actually is’

The Duchess Of Sussex Visits The Hubb Community Kitchen

You’re never going to believe this, but the Bitter Bettys of the royal press pack have some terrible takes on the formalization of the Sussexit. Last Friday, Buckingham Palace announced that “The Queen has written confirming 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.” The Sussexes snapped back: “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.” Camilla Tominey says not so fast, Harry and Meghan clearly – !! – don’t understand public service. O RLY.

The UK Telegraph’s associate editor, Camilla Tominey, said it was “never going to be possible” for Harry and Meghan to “have the best of both worlds”.

“Part of the problem is that the Sussexes do not seem to understand what public service actually is,” said Tominey. “As a California-born former actress, Meghan can arguably be forgiven for this. But it somewhat beggars belief that Harry, a blood-born prince who grew up in the Firm, agreed to respond to the statement with the line: ‘We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.’ Not only is it deeply disrespectful to engage in this sort of last word freakery with the Queen, but I also do not think the 94-year-old monarch, who has devoted her whole life to duty, needs to be lectured on service by anyone, not least when her 99-year-old husband remains in hospital. It is undoubtedly highly commendable that Harry and Meghan want to continue with their charity work, philanthropy is not, and never has been, the same as public service.”

She said the couple had spent the last 12 months “desperately trying to disguise the fact they have swapped duty for dollars”, citing their “megabucks deals” with Netflix and Spotify, plus the upcoming interview with Oprah Winfrey on March 7.

[From News.com.au]

You know what beggars belief? That in the year of our lord Beyonce 2021, there exists an entire industry devoted to lecturing Harry and Meghan for wanting to serve, asking to serve, being refused their offer to serve, and then criticizing them for all of it. Again, the Queen is not the gatekeeper to duty and service. Again, the “royal way” of approaching service to one’s country with grim hatred is not the only way. Again, Harry and Meghan are exposing the Windsors’ main thing, which is that the transactional nature of royal duty is beneficial to the Windsors and no one else. But wait, do you care what Angela Levin has to say?

Royal commentator Angela Levin labelled Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Royal Family departure as “rude”. Ms Levin added that it showed Queen Elizabeth II that the couple “don’t care” about the monarchy. Ms Levin said: “I think the non-stop waves of what they are doing now and what they are going to be doing, just makes you feel Sussex exhaustion. They don’t seem to care how they affect the Royal Family, they have got their freedom, they have got everything they wanted. They have got one little boy and she is pregnant again with another child, that is all terrific. But you have to understand what the Royal Family stands for.’

Angela Levin said the Queen was a ‘patient woman’ but that she was ‘devoted to her sense of duty’ and the protection of the royal family. ‘I’m not in the least surprised. I think there’s been a lot of rumours that the Queen would do this. The Queen as we know is devoted to her duty and to her country…she loves her children and being a grandmother. But in the end her sense of duty is more important than grandchildren or children or great grandchildren. She wants to keep them close as a family, but they cannot push their luck too far.’

Ms Levin said there had been concerns at the palace over how ‘increasingly escapist’ Harry and Meghan had become. ‘(The Queen) doesn’t want the royal family’s name to be tainted in that way and this, I think, crossed the red line. She’s a very patient woman, she’s not a micromanager. She lets her children and grandchildren do what they want up to a certain extent and when they overstep that, she comes down.’

[From The Daily Mail & Daily Express]

“But you have to understand what the Royal Family stands for.” Yes, that was Meghan and Harry’s mistake, honestly. Harry thought his family would welcome a charismatic, beautiful woman of color into the fold and find a way to use them both to modernize the Crown in the 21st century. But H&M didn’t know that the Royal Family stands for pettiness, rage, historical indifference, white privilege, colonialism, racism, etc. “My bad,” Harry reportedly said when he found out.

The Duchess Of Sussex Visits The Hubb Community Kitchen

The Duke Of Sussex Carries Out Green Beret Presentation

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

150 Responses to “Tominey: ‘The Sussexes do not seem to understand what public service actually is’”

  1. sandy says:

    truly though – I don’t know why Harry thought it would be ok? Like – what did he see behind the scences that suggested to him that Meghan would be treated well or that they would have her back, and support her and help them?

    • Bryn says:

      I think sometimes you just want to believe that your family is wonderful and accepting and sometimes they just aren’t.

      • Ginger says:

        Exactly Bryan. Harry really thought they would accept her. Meghan also didn’t expect her Dad to act the way he did. We also don’t know what went on behind the scenes.

        Family always eventually show themselves.

      • Jamie says:

        I agree, Bryn. Sometimes you think that because it’s your family they’ll think differently. It’s always shocking to learn that their love for/relationship with you is not always enough to keep them from having outdated/offensive beliefs.

      • Dahlia6 says:

        That hits close to home.

    • Shadeau says:

      I think back to his comment when they first were engaged and he was describing spending Christmas with the RF and Meghan experiencing “the family she never had.” It is so sad to me that he must have really believed he was giving her a new family and that she would be welcomed and protected by them.

    • S808 says:

      I can only think that he had his blinders on and thought that because he loved her, they would too. He got her tf outta there tho and that’s what’s most important.

    • BabsORIG says:

      There was no way Harry could have predicted that his family would treat his wife horribly, please let’s stop with the victim blaming.
      Secondly, I have seen a few Brits post on here (eg Ainsley) how public service is different from philanthropy and couple these comments with the Levin and Tominey’s etc, I’m beginning to believe that perhaps the Brits have a narrower interpretation of “public service”. I think in Britain only their royal family, civil servants and maybe their elected officials are their only public servants? Well as else where in the world, educators, medical personnel, armed forces, volunteers, charity organizations etc are all considered public servants. I don’t know, I’m open to learning if there are any different takes on this especially from other Brits.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think its a fine line, even here in the US, between “public service” and “service.” Public service, IMO, usually does involve being employed by the government or volunteering directly with government organizations that serve the public. But I dont think of medical personnel as being “public servants?” But they’re certainly engaging in “service.”

        But that said, it was a pointed slap from the royal family and was meant to imply exactly what we all said it was – that Harry and Meghan are stepping away from the royal family because they cant handle the idea of a life of service, whether public or not.

        If the palace had meant to say that there is a difference between philanthropy and public service and both are important but H&M cannot engage in both – well, the statement really failed then.

      • Nic919 says:

        Public service as done by the royals is a finely tuned propaganda machine that fools many people into thinking that the royals deserve the lands and riches they have plundered over millennia. This concept was only invented in 1917 when the Romanovs, first cousins to the Windsors, were killed and the German Kaiser, the other first cousin of the Windsors, had started WWI and killed so many Britons that the Saxe Gotha Coburg family was now suddenly the Windsor family.

        And to pretend that public service by the royals is not done for any benefit on their part is frankly a lie. They just happen to get a lot more in return for the very little they do compared to other government public servants. And they also avoid giving any of their own money, as philanthropists do.

        It’s always been a scam.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @Becks1, I hear you. But public service by definition is “any service rendered to a community”. I’m not sure if the media is necessarily “public service” ( I really don’t know) but certainly educators, medical personnel (nurses, doctors, researchers, public transportation, charity organizations that involve in all kinds of disasters, judicial systems etc, ALL those are “public” services and thus the people that work with them are public servants; at least that’s how I look at it, but I could be wrong.
        I mean you can’t tell me all our researchers that working tirelessly to find CIVID vaccines or cancer cures, nurses and doctors working during this pandemic, organizations that are now in Texas working with Texans to alleviate effects of a natural disaster, all first responders including fire fighters, paramedics etc, the men and women in uniform that selflessly give their body and soul for their country, that all these folks are NOT public servants but Petty Betty, Chuckieclueless and Wonderdick Willileaks are because they were born in the BRF? Naaaahhh, not buying that madness.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Babs – I think that’s the issue, right? The statement seemed to demean and diminish work that others do if they arent part of the royal family. That’s why it struck such a cord. It implied that the workers at the NHS, who have had one hell of year, arent engaging in service.

        They could have taken an extra 5 minutes to review the statement and considered how that part of it might go over, considering the past year, where I think we’ve learned who the true public servants are, and its not Petty Betty.

      • Julia says:

        The nuance here interests me, too. I am a longtime food bank volunteer, and some of my fellow volunteers are REALLY old–like, in their 80s and 90s. There is a wonderful man who works several days a week who’s older than the Queen. He no longer drives, so he takes a Dial-a-Lift bus down to the food bank, then spends a couple of hours breaking down overflow school food into smaller portions, so we can hand them out to families (like separating a huge bin of several hundred pancakes into neatly wrapped 8-pancake packs). How is that not public service? It’s not just a kind person-to-person act, it also benefits local public institutions, by keeping taxpayer-supplied food out of local landfills.

      • Missskitttin says:

        “The Queen has written confirming 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.” God forbid you are needy, poor, in Britain, as public service is so frowned upon and all the help would only and specifically come from the royals… I don’t think keenkate and her lot would be enough.

      • Lemons says:

        I think the Brits who defend the fine-tooth comb needing to be applied to these definitions are jumping through as many hoops and bending into backwards dog positions to arrive there.

        Meghan and Harry are making money through philanthropy, but that doesn’t take away from how they serve their community. In fact, they will be making MORE of an impact than the royals who are receiving much more in exchange for their version of service. How many royals and royal-adjacents are living off the royal purse? Can we get a breakdown of how much they have managed to earn/donate to charities and patronages and how much they are given?

    • Miranda says:

      My guess is that, when Harry first brought Meghan around to meet his family, they were on their best behavior. They probably weren’t thinking of her as a potential in-law, like she was just a “phase” he was going through. But when it came down to marriage, that was a bridge too far. Which is sadly rather common with interracial relationships.

      • OR says:

        Agreed. Didn’t Diana say in one of her interviews that at first (as the girlfriend) they treated her fairly nicely. It was only after marriage, that the masks came off. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Snuffles says:

        Agreed. I can’t remember where I read it but someone in the family circle said Harry was “cunt-struck”. There were RRs like Dickie Arbiter who were swearing on everything they hold dear that Meghan was just a fling and it would never lead to marriage. Not because that was their opinion, but that’s what they were TOLD by their royal sources.

        That tells me that there definitely were forces behind the scenes trying to either scare Meghan off of get Harry to dump her.

    • Soupie says:

      “TOMINEY: ‘THE SUSSEXES DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PUBLIC SERVICE ACTUALLY IS.’ ”

      Oh now she’s really gone way too far. Further than ever before. What a complete as-.

    • jbyrdku says:

      My thoughts exactly.

      Did he think that they might extend an olive branch, simply out of love for him? Maybe. We’ll never really be sure, but I find it hard to believe that he did not KNOW who his family is and what they really represent. He should have known how bad things would get and be able to see how he might lack a support system down the road. Of course the Crown is going to favor the future king in any scenario. That’s why they’ve done historically and it’s what they will always do.

    • Meg says:

      Both of my parents raised in Iowa which is about 96% white. I hadn’t heard racist comments from them before so i naively thought theyd be cool with my friends, some of whom were not white, but neglected to consider they weren’t accustomed to diversity so this would be new for them- and they responded in ways i hadnt seen before.
      i was raised in a suburb of Minneapolis which more recently has a large muslim community immigrated from Somalia. I was shocked at the comments made accusing them of things they’d never done like stealing, me insisting we weren’t friends gaslighting me saying i didn’t actually like them, calling a therapist i was seeing and telling them ‘you need to talk to my daughter about why she hangs out with black people.’ My therapist told me saying ‘your mothers issues with race are just that, your mothers issues. We wont be spending even a moment talking about the race of your friends.’

    • Mila says:

      Well tbh seeing as how white they are, I doubt he had ever been put in the position to see how they would act! I assume he thought they would be just like him 🤷🏾‍♀️

  2. Sofia says:

    It truly is a tough competition, it really is but somehow, Tominey and Levin manage to be one of the worst of the RR bunch.

    • Jais says:

      Angela levin was on GMB last week in response to the pregnancy announcement and beautiful announcement picture. Her response was literally I wish Meghan didn’t feel she had to score points all the time. So interesting that in her mind the pregnancy and Meghan and Harry looking beautiful and happy in a picture was about scoring points in a competition against…who? The RF, the press, herself? She then said that they could both be quite rude and unhelpful? So rude of them to share their joy! Omfg

      • Ginger says:

        Angela is so upset that Harry is happy in CA and happy with Meghan. She has been pushing the “sad, depressed Harry” narrative since they left. It pains her to see him happy. It’s very interesting she is turning on Harry now.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Cameltoe is simply doing what she knows which is to spread poisonous hate. She reserves the worst of her venom for Meghan which is understandable really. I know her type well. A toady who can’t stand when a woman of colour moves in the circles she will kill to get into with ease.
      It hurts even more that Harry is clearly besotted with his wife.
      Riddle me this Cameltoe, which of your royal left over wives have made a tangible impact as Meghan in a very short time? I will wait. If that’s not public service I wonder what is.
      As for that disgusting Demon woman she is actually threatening the well being of the Sussexes in the Queen’s name. If they think they can Diana them and get away with it, they have another thing coming because this time, the people will actually get rid of the RF.

  3. Emm says:

    Ok, if philanthropy is not public service or anything like it pray tell what the difference is and why you think this royal brand of public service is superior to the Sussex’s philanthropy? Also, please highlight all of the public service the do nothings have done over the last year that has actually been beneficial to the public in tangible ways. They all go out and cut ribbons and make 30min zoom calls or sometimes even choo choo around the country during a pandemic but are they doing that much real tangible good that is making a real difference in peoples lives? Maybe they should switch to philanthropy.

    • Julie says:

      Read between the lines. They fear that if the Sussexes succeed at both supporting themselves and philanthropy, the people will start to ask why on earth the Windsors need to be tax payer funded. They stupidly created a situation where they will forever be fighting for their own survival because let’s face it, the Sussexes will not just thrive but in a few years the pendulum will have swung in their favor. Lmao.. silly Lizzie just signed off on the end of the monarchy.

      • Dss says:

        Yes this!!!

      • Cora says:

        Down with the monarchy!

      • Emile says:

        Agree. They continually try to underplay the Sussex’s philanthropy and advocacy (and make a fuss about Netflix & Spotify) as a means of delegitimizing them in those spaces and pretending that what the working Royals do is the only form of service and duty available.

        They are aware, as many of us are, that eventually people will begin to ask the question of “if H&M can earn their own money while still serving the public, why can’t the rest of the RF do the same?” This is the main reason why they scratched out half-in-half out — because it would have made that question arrive much earlier and in a more clear-cut way. By making these asinine distinctions between public service and philanthropy, they can at least defer that question to a later date. But eventually, as H&M continue to fund, undertake, or advocate for projects that provide real inspiration and tangible change, the public at large will eventually see through the royal farce.

        Anyhow, we’ll see how things play out. I agree with some posters in that I don’t see the monarchy lasting beyond the 21st century… but I also recognise the amount of work that’s required to get rid of it, work that many people (both in government and the public) probably won’t want to do…

      • The Recluse says:

        Exactly.

    • lucy2 says:

      Apparently to them public service is live a fancy life off generational wealth and the taxpayers, and show up now and then to make the little people happy.

      H&M actually care about their causes and work for them. They made the rest of the family look bad.

      LOL at all this “they must do this” and “they cannot do that”. B!tch, please! They are grown adults who are financially independent, live 5000 miles away, and have made it clear they don’t want to be part of that mess anymore. Give up trying to control them, it’s not happening!

    • Amy Too says:

      And considering the fact that the Sussexes will be keeping their private UK patronages and engaging with them in the exact same way as they engaged with their royal patronages… I don’t understand why the RRs and RF are so set on continuing this semantics argument. The Sussexes will literally be doing the same things they were doing before PLUS MORE but they still want to scream that philanthropy isn’t public service, when the philanthropy, at least with their private patronages, is basically being a royal patron in everything but name and doing it because they choose to, not because they have to. The whole “because they have to” seems to be what the RF thinks makes it “duty” and “public service.” “We do this bc we have to bc its our job, even though we’re not good at it and don’t like it” doesn’t make you sound good.

      They can’t stop making themselves look bad. Stop fighting about petty things. You are not going to suddenly win over all of public opinion by just talking more and stating the same arguments that got in you in trouble in the first place over and over again.

      • THANK YOU for that perfect response, AMY TOO. The only difference in the definition of the service the Sussexes will continue to offer to the ‘patronages they will continue to offer service to is the striking of the word, ROYAL.

        And a super huge thank you to KAISER for daily wading through the deep end of the endless BS of the “carnival of so called royal experts” so that we don’t have to! You and Lainey are my go to commentators on this endless stream of S***. Your commentary is much enjoyed and appreciated. A PERFECT 🔟 every time.

      • Lady D says:

        I seriously appreciate you too, Kaiser. Reading the original stories just makes me so mad, a few times even enraged over the treatment of the Duke and Duchess. It’s better for my mental health if I just catch Kaiser recaps.

      • tealily says:

        Yes, exactly. Rich people have do philanthropic work. That is the culture of the rich. If the only difference between the royals and the other rich people is that they have to FORCED into service what the hell is the point?

    • pottymouth pup says:

      in truth, what they’re pointing out is that to the BRF service is an obligation to them. When the royals do their service, it is performative and a duty in which they engage to show they’re earning their keep

  4. FeatherDuk says:

    Ummmm, am I the only one reading this as a threat? Petty Betty will have her grandchildren and great grandchildren shanked if they don’t fall in line?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @FeatherDuck – Your reading is correct.

    • Sofia says:

      It’s an empty threat. HM can’t do anything at all to try and take anybody “away”. Both legally and underhandedly.

    • Snuffles says:

      Yup.

      I was just thinking. The first time I visited Versailles outside of Paris a few years ago and did the tour, I wondered why on EARTH did King Louis need SO MUCH space and rooms and gaudy trappings. Versailles is HUGE with multiple palaces and it’s own little working village within the grounds.

      So I read the tour guide book they handed out and it turns out that Louis ran his ENTIRE government from there. ALL elected and/or appointed officials lived on the premises. Anyone who had any power or position was allowed to live there, for free in the lap of luxury. That way the King could keep tabs on everyone and ensured that they would do his bidding. It worked until the peasants rose up and deposed the royal family and chopped off a few heads.

      I think the Queen operates under a similar logic when it comes to her family and courtiers. She keeps them in the lap of luxury due to her perceived largesse but the price they pay is to remain under her control. That’s why she so strongly discourages senior members of the royal family from doing their own thing and making their own money.

      Harry was clearly part of everyone’s plans to keep the monarchy going but that wasn’t going to happen if he was allowed to be too independent under the monarchy.

      • Amy Too says:

        This part: “But in the end her sense of duty is more important than grandchildren or children or great grandchildren. She wants to keep them close as a family, but they cannot push their luck too far,” also sounds horrible. There’s the threatening part about she’ll step on them if they get out of line, but this part about how she values her family only as much as they can help her fulfill her duty is disgusting. They are literally bragging that this woman cares more about her make-work job of being a “Queen” who is basically just a pretend, dress-up version of a Queen, who has no real governmental power, or church power, or commonwealth power, or armed forces power despite being the “head” of all of those things, over her own family, her own children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. And yet we’re supposed to believe all the stories about what a nice granny she is and how close the family is. She admits to using her family and caring about her job more than her entire family who rely on her for literally everything.

      • Nic919 says:

        I think we also need to start saying that the Queen’s concept of duty is more about ego than anything.

        What exactly is she doing to serve at this point? Two speeches? It’s not like she has done anything to curtail the poorly run government headed by Boris. She’s just a figurehead and a pretty expensive one at that.

        And if it was only her being supported that’s one thing, but why does her entire family of adult children and grandchildren need to be involved?

      • molly says:

        @Amy Too: Look no further than the “group decision” to have Will and Harry walk behind their mother’s casket. Her entire existence is duty and public perception, and she has zero ability to be anything else.

    • escondista says:

      I feel like the abdication of King Edward shaped Elizabeth’s childhood and she thinks that the crown must be protected at all costs. She has surrounded herself by people who agree with this and doesn’t realize that the world is moving on. The more people figure out that they don’t need the monarchy (via H and M, if necessary), the more hostile and controlling the monarchy will get.

      • Dilettante says:

        And all the grey men on the public payroll don’t want their sinecure to end – I mean, god forbid, get a real job!?!

  5. Myra says:

    Imagine thinking that cutting ribbons or unveiling a plaque is some form of public service. In turn, you get to wear tiaras, pretend medals, live in mansions and look down on people. The royals keep reminding us that there is no place for them in this century. They do not belong. Their refusal to modernise and to embrace all people should be their downfall. Thankfully, for them the BM keeps gaslighting the general public.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Imagine thinking that cutting ribbons or unveiling a plaque is some form of public service.”

      I get your point but there are a large number of Brits who want a Royal, the more senior Royal the better, at the Annual Village Fete and want a Royal to “cut the ribbon” at the dedication for the new public tennis courts and walking path.

      • Myra says:

        I get that, but I would not brag about it in some attempts to score cheap points when the public service being referred to is really ribbon-cutting and plaque-unveiling.

      • HeatherC says:

        because they’re useful in some way or because, gasp, it’s the royal version of having Halle Berry there?

      • tealily says:

        Haha @HeatherC! They’re “influencers,” right? People want them there because they bring attention. Bringing attention is their job.

      • Nyro says:

        Heather, exactly. These charities would get far more press, and very likely more donations, if they invited celebrities or even online influencers. The Royal family don’t have an active fan base. They don’t have stans. The boomers and super seniors who buy the wedding tea towels and the royal baby silverware every few years are not donating to charities when they see news of a royal engagement.

  6. Kalana says:

    Public service means staying within the clutches of Camilla Tominey and Angela Levin. It means keeping the whole royals/rota system going and keeping the Establishment chugging along. How dare Harry leave that behind?

  7. Harla says:

    If I were a person in need, I would gladly trade the Sussex’s, whose efforts have made tangible differences, for the royals who don’t do anything that they are not paid to do.

  8. Liz version 700 says:

    Stay across the Pond H&M. There is nothing left in England worth the trip right now. Your family is wretched and the press is just plain evil.

  9. JT says:

    The RR takes are damaging the RF and I don’t think the palace realizes that. The press is putting them in a box that is unchanging when they desperately need to change. By defining service in the most narrow way possible they are kneecapping the monarchy’s ability to adapt for the future. Those bread and butter “service” engagements are only going to become more obsolete, and there won’t be as many as there are only a handful of royals left. Going forward it should be more projects/ initiatives supplemented by the bread and butters. You know, what Charles does. What H&M were doing. When Charles becomes king, he will be in for wild ride because things have to change for the royals’ continuity, but the BM will hold them back. The RR aren’t really equipped to discuss the work of The Prince’s Trust, IG, or Smartset. They only deal in gossip and what’s going to happen when they don’t have enough fair openings to discuss? Not only are the BM not smart enough to discuss bigger, more impactful work but they make the royals seem hateful. Their coverage of the queen and co. make the RF look bad and the negativity is getting ridiculous and boring.

    • Emile says:

      Yes, this is one of the things I’ve noticed about Royal reporting in general — they are utterly incapable of doing intelligent reporting. So when Kate did that mental health selfie thing a few weeks back, Emily Andrew’s (I think) reporting was all about how Kate had glowing skin, and wore a Barbour jacket, and was on her way to go jogging.

      This is one of the reasons why H&M wanted to get away from the royal rota — so that their work can be written up and articulated in a serious way, which is what places like TIME, the NY Times, Fast Company, etc. have been doing.

    • Mila says:

      Yep this is what I’ve been saying and noticing a lot, they think they are hurting the Sussex’s, but they are only setting themselves and the monarchy up for failure 🤷🏾‍♀️

  10. Mina_Esq says:

    Most royals begrudge their public service obligations but do the work in order to ensure continued access to their lives of luxury. They show up, they wave, and the government agrees to not kick them out of the palace. H and M want to serve out of the goodness of their hearts, and they do real work on the side ( Netflix, Spotify, etc) in order to fund those projects. In my humble, North American opinion, the latter is more admirable. They are right, we can all serve our communities. I’ve been volunteering since I was in the 9th grade. We have community service awards. It’s a thing.

  11. Cecilia says:

    Shut up tomney

    • lanne says:

      Isn’t that the slag who tried to tie the Hub kitchen to terrorism and was high fived by a white supremist? Bitch needs to take a seat. And someone have that Angela Levin freak committed. She’s giving off serious stalker vibes. Bitch is a bunny boiler for sure!

      • Sequinedheart says:

        She’s a boring tw@t who does nothing but tear H&M down. I dislike her immensely.

      • February-Pisces says:

        What camilla T said about the Hub kitchen was so disgusting. It makes me sick to think that these women who were trying to rebuild their lives after such a horrific experience could have become targets of whites supremacists. She wanted to trash Meghan but that story could have had drastic consequences for innocent people, and all because her fav duchess is such a lazy boring basic b*tch.

  12. Snuffles says:

    The royal definition of service:

    Quantity over quality. PR spin over substance. Sacrifice personal happiness to keep the fake image that the royal family actually cares about their subjects in exchange for free housing, a generous allowance and a lavish lifestyle full of perks.

    As far as this quote “ But in the end her sense of duty is more important than grandchildren or children or great grandchildren. She wants to keep them close as a family, but they cannot push their luck too far.’”

    The fact that they believe that is why that family is the dysfunctional toxic cesspit it is today.

    • Becks1 says:

      Also, let’s remember the quote from the Richard Kay piece yesterday –

      “There is a world of difference: one is playing at it and one is doing it day after day, come rain or shine.”

      the difference between what the royals do and what H&M want to do, according to Kay, was that the latter are “playing at it.” But it would seem to me that what the royals do is playing – they are participating in pageantry – costumes and waving and greeting their minions and then retreating to their castles.

      • Nic919 says:

        How can Richard Kay try to imply the royals are serious when there is Kate, the 40 year old child, being praised for just showing up. If anyone is playing at service it’s her.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I always think of when Kate was suppose to guest edit the Huff Post. She was suppose to be there all day actually doing the work, and instead left after an hour after she had all her pics taken to go shopping. Then there’s Meghan who spent months guest editing Vogue.

        Royal engagements are just photo ops for the royals. Harry and Meghan actually bring results. The two don’t compare.

  13. Betsy says:

    I really, truly wonder how much of this Elizabeth is directing and how much is just the machine going as it goes. Yes, the Queen has dedicated her life in service to the country and the royal family, but in a not in particularly helpful way, and let’s not pretend that she hasn’t gotten some serious privileges in return. Castles. Weeks of vacation (oh, excuse me, BUT HER BOXES!!). Royal jewels. Fancy dresses (they’re not usually to my taste, but she gets to pick them). Servants to cater to your every whim. The best of whatever you want.

    Lots and lots of people live lives dedicated to service (not me; I’m sorry to say I suck in that way) and it pervades their lives. I wouldn’t call their lives miserable or small, but they’re definitely not living large in multiple residences like the TQ. I don’t know if this is just Tominey or if it was suggested to her by someone at the Palace, but LORD. It is *tone deaf.*

    • So agree BETSY, the Queen did dedicate her life to her people, but Harry is not the Queen; he is also not King Edward abdicating the throne. And yet, all these “carnival of so called royal experts” can’t seem to tell the difference. They hammer on as if he took the oath of office right along side the Queen in 1953! Or that Harry deciding to live a private life puts him in the same position as Edward abdicating. It’s BIZARRO world in Merry Ole England.

  14. Becks1 says:

    Something that I’m scratching my head over lately – do these RRs think they’re making the Queen, the UK, or themselves look good? Maybe they’re scoring points with a certain segment of the population, but the more they keep going on and on about the Queen and her “life of duty” the more I think people are asking “uhhhh….she’s lived her life on the taxpayer dime and yes, she had to cut a few ribbons as a result.” And I think the Crown (the show) plays a part here, because people are realizing how cold and unfeeling the royal family actually is. The reason the Diana storyline this season struck such a nerve with people is because they realized the family actually hasnt changed. So now we have this image of a petty woman who is mean spirited and thinks that God chose her over other people to…..to do what? cut the ribbons?

    Saying that the Queen isnt a micromanager, she lets her children do what they want “to a certain extent” – like, her children are adults. Two of them, quite frankly, are verging on elderly. But their mother still holds them on a leash.

    The line about “service” in the palace statement was a huge mistake and I think this is all scrambling to cover for it, but jeez louise, what a mess. These people really are incompetent.

    • Sandra says:

      I know The Crown is historical fiction and I don’t know if they did it on purpose but there were certainly a few zingers in there where I wondered if they were purposely trying to show how the family treated Diana and Margaret is still relevant today with H&M. Diana’s line about not wanting the courtiers to turn her baby boy into an unfeeling cold snob like the rest of the family. The way Margaret was downgraded from wanting to perform duties in favor of the Queen’s children and it just left Margaret listless. Margaret in the show also had a line about the family to her mother after she learned her developmentally disabled cousins were falsely proclaimed dead. I can’t exactly remember what she said but I remember thinking, OHHH, THEY WENT THERE!

      • Becks1 says:

        I definitely think those zingers were intentional. When Margaret said “how many times can this family keep making the same mistake” or the line about “she’ll bend” – “and if she doesnt?” “then she’ll break” were very intentional. I dont know if they were specifically about H&M, because the season was obviously written before Sussexit was announced, but I think it was a general criticism of the family in general and seeing what was happening with Meghan – the family keeps making the same mistake, and they were waiting for Meghan to bend or break.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        I think this is the scene you’re speaking of?

        “As for why the family didn’t “behave like human beings,” as Helena Bonham Carter’s Margaret puts it….TQM insists they ‘had no choice’…”

        “It’s impossible to know whether or not the Queen Mother really used the wording “professionally diagnosed idiocy and imbecility” in her explanation of Nerissa and Katherine’s threat to the family. But she certainly does on the show, much to Margaret’s apparent disgust. “The hereditary principle already hangs by such a precarious thread. Throw in mental illness and it’s over,” the Queen Mother says. “The idea that one family alone has the automatic birthright to the Crown is already so hard to justify. **The gene pool of that family better have 100 percent purity.” **. (And it doesn’t, according to her; she also cites the case of King George III, who was thought to have bipolar disorder.)”

        https://www.wmagazine.com/story/queen-cousins-asylum-nerissa-katherine-bowes-lyon

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        H&M saw the BRF for what they are, Harry said “oh hell no, I’m not going to allow history to repeat itself”, and did the thing his own father refused to do: look after his wife and children.

        The BRF/RR reaction is, predictably, an abuser’s extinction burst.

    • SarahCS says:

      Yes Becks1, the more they talk the more they are telling on themselves and I don’t think they have any idea. Let’s keep having these conversations.

    • Amy Too says:

      Every article is which they attempt to clean up their mess makes them look worse because they can’t stop doubling down on the sentiments and statements that got them in trouble in the first place. The messaging isn’t working. And not only is it just not winning the PR war by swaying people to their side, it’s hurting them hugely. People are reading the weeks worth of insisting that the offensive things they’ve said and done are actually right and good and correct, and they’re being turned off from the royal family for the first time. People who didn’t pay attention before now hate them. People who were neutral before now hate them. People who liked them before and bought into the H and M are evil traitors scheme are now questioning whether that’s true. Get some new advisors. Stop relying on the rabid rota to act as your PR service because they’re not going to be able to suddenly clean up the mess they made in the first place. Bullying Harry and Meghan made them leave. Leaving is hurting the RF. So having the press just keep bullying H and M is obviously not a good strategy.

  15. Who ARE These People? says:

    Isn’t this because the Royals believe they are a breed (literally, a breed) apart from “the public” and so when they do anything, it is a service to “the public” and thus “public service?”

    And so it would follow that members of “the public” could not actually perform service to “the public” because they are no different (and no better)? Because service from a Royal is somehow better than service from a non-Royal? More of the magic touch, you might say?

    Ultimately, it appears that the British Royals conception of duty is simply condescension.

    And “commoners,” not being to the manor born, cannot possibly undertake public service.

    At least it’s internally consistent. To the British Royals.

    What a waste of money.

    • @who are these people. This is the BRF, RR, and the courtiers microscopic view of public service. How condescending and disdainful. They think they are God’s gift to humankind. Not.

  16. BlueSky says:

    Too bad Diana really struggled to perform a life of public service once she was divorced and stripped of her HRH title..oh wait…..

  17. STRIPE says:

    Ummmmmmmmmmm

    What??

    No they know exactly what public service is. They *also* understand that if you’re not a parasite on the taxpayers you have to earn your own money to donate towards causes and create foundations etc.

  18. Emmy Rae says:

    I do respect the public service (or is it philanthropy?) of Ms Tominey introducing me to the phrase “last word freakery”. Arguments in my household are never going to be the same!

  19. Sunday says:

    So, by ‘service,’ the royal family doesn’t mean philanthropy or actually helping people or generally giving a sh*t about the state of your kingdom, it just means giving up your life in service to the crown, AKA allowing yourself, as the spare and his wife, to forever be used as punching bags to make the heir look better. Service means diminishing yourself so that you don’t outshine those who outrank you, service means foregoing personal fulfillment in favor of the firm’s agenda. Service means allowing others to take credit for your work, to wear bright colors to your beige. Service means perpetual deference, head forever bowed as the one true heir reigns supreme.

    I’ll take modern philanthropy over archaic service any day.

    • Amy Too says:

      Yes. I’ve just sort of had an epiphany and I think the “public service” they’re talking about is all about service to upholding the crown itself and maybe not even the person wearing the crown except as they represent the crown. They seem to all just be living their lives in a way that they think will perpetuate the monarchy. The service they’re talking about is not service to the public, it’s not about doing good things, it’s about making sure that the monarchy prevails. They are all expected to live their lives in such a way that upholds the values of hereditary power, primogeniture, inherited unearned wealth, white superiority and the class system. Even when they know that they themselves are not particularly suited to being King or Queen and would much rather do something else. Because it doesn’t matter if you’re a good Queen or King who uses the platform well and helps the public is hugely philanthropic ways, it just matters that the monarchy is preserved perpetually. The public service they are providing is ensuring that Britain will remain white, xenophobic, racist, and small with huge emphasis on a class structure, colonial values, and the hoarding of wealth and land as symbolized by the monarchy.

      • …” The service they’re talking about is not service to the public, it’s not about doing good things, it’s about making sure that the monarchy prevails.”…

        You are on fire today, AMY TOO. Excellent comment!

    • Emile says:

      Actually this makes perfect sense… “Service” in their parlance means service to the Crown + a commitment to helping reproduce/extend the life of the monarchy (long past its sell-by-date). It actually doesn’t have anything to do with serving people, improving their lives, or making the world a better place. So even though H&M (and millions of others) do the latter, it doesn’t count as “service” in their eyes because it doesn’t aim or attempt to do the former.

    • Gail Hirst says:

      This is exactly why Harry left. Because subjecting himself and being the punching bag for the press so Wm can be a jerk was hurting his heart, his soul and his psyche. His bro taking ALL credit for his work, etc. And you know what? I think, had they treated his wife properly, I think they may have stayed. But the RF allowed, nay encouraged, the racist piling on and Harry then said, this is crap and we’re leaving so we can stay alive

  20. notasugarhere says:

    Tominey does not appear to understand what ‘journalism’ actually is.

  21. MF1 says:

    “They don’t seem to care how they affect the Royal Family, they have got their freedom, they have got everything they wanted.”

    And that’s a bad thing…. how? The Royal Family made it clear that H&M were not wanted. They ran the couple out of England. They refused to make any concessions that would protect H&M from the rota or Baldy’s leaks.

    So H&M left. They’re free and they not obligated to consider the Royal Family any more. That’s the direct result of Will’s harassment of them in the press and Petty Betty’s hardheadedness in not allowing them a part time role.

  22. Faithmobile says:

    Maybe because i’m American I see the word duty very differently. Duty is something you have to do versus what you want to do. Is it a punishment? An exchange? It certainly isn’t altruism or coming from a place of empathy and compassion so why is it better than philanthropy or volunteerism? The Sussexes didn’t have to offer a half in half out option nor did they need to continue doing charity work, they could have walked off into the sunset but they didn’t. I think the contrast of their altruism pisses off royalists because it can’t help shine a light on the royal family’s actual disdain for their fellow man. The world is watching now, and what we see is whole lot of hypocrisy and racist takes on a couple trying to make the world a better place.

  23. Liz version 700 says:

    So Queen Elizabeth’s cousin has been arrested for sexual assault. Is this the Royal family stands for. It seems to be a trend. But by all means keep making nasty statements about the grandson who left the mess and his wife who got terrorized for existing.

    • Yoyo says:

      He is being sentenced today???

      • Jaded says:

        Today Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin twice removed has been jailed for 10 months for assaulting a woman sexually. Simon Bowes-Lyon, the Earl of Strathmore, confessed he made advances towards a 26-year-old woman in February 2020 at the royal family’s ancestral castle. The incident occurred in a bedroom at Glamis Castle, which was the childhood home of the Queen’s late mother. According to the report, the victim still suffers from nightmares from the 20-minute attack. BBC reported that the assault involved the Queen’s cousin entering the victim’s room uninvited and groping her while trying to pull off her nightdress.

        In his confessional statement, Bowes-Lyon confessed to the crime saying he is “greatly ashamed of my actions which have caused such distress to a guest in my home.”

        “I did not think I was capable of behaving the way I did but have had to face up to it and take responsibility,” he said.

  24. Sandra says:

    The BRF cannot stand that by simply showing up to work and effectively helping underprivileged people, Meghan inadvertently exposed that the BRF are the ones “playing at” public service. The only one I’ve seen directly helping people during the pandemic is Fergie! And she’s not really a member of the family anymore! And she’s Fergie!
    Zoom calls are nice for morale but what are they actually DOING to help the public right now? Charlotte delivering pasta to the elderly was a sweet photo op, but a five year old is not going to be able to help the masses.

  25. Case says:

    Asking genuinely — do the royals actually DO any public service? They have photo ops and go talk to commoners sometimes, but do they do anything on the scale that Meghan and Harry have taken on? I don’t think so. At least not the younger royals, and that’s why they were so threatened by Meghan’s intelligence, personality, work ethic, and genuine care for her patronages.

    • Sandra says:

      I think Charles’ Prince’s Trust has actually helped people. But I’m still scratching my head at exactly what the Queen has done. Listen, I know she’s been on the throne for almost 70 years and I don’t know the history of her reign, but I still don’t know anything she’s done other than what you said. I’m happy to be enlightened.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Queen gets credit for existing a very long time. And she helps perpetuate the status quo for the Tory establishment and elite. Beyond that it’s hard to say.

  26. chimes@midnight says:

    “”You shouldn’t be picking on an old woman whose husband is in the hospital. Nevermind that we, the British press, gleefully tried to turn hounding a pregnant woman in to a national passtime.”

  27. TheOriginalMia says:

    Only the Queen knows what service is? Are you seriously with this bs? The Queen uses charity to hide her greed and indifference towards the masses. Harry & Meghan are exposing the big lie. That one doesn’t have to be royalty or on the public dole in order to be charitable and philanthropic. Surprisingly, ordinary people without titles and crowns are able to give freely of themselves and their money and goods to those in need. This cabal of so called experts are not doing the BRF any favors. They make them seem even more out of touch and archaic every time they write a story to bash the Sussexes.

  28. Jaded says:

    To these brittle old battleaxes public service must mean sniffing disdainfully at the unwashed masses. What a pair of horrible old crows.

  29. lunchcoma says:

    Apparently public service is solely the domain of royalty in countries that have royal families?

    The only royals who have anything resembling a full time job are Charles and Anne. Edward and Sophie and Camilla have something more like part-time jobs, and William and Catherine do less philanthropy work than many ordinary people who work full time in other fields.

    Whatever. This might be a difference in nationality. Harry’s view toward service will fit in well in the US and in many other places, and he’s more than welcome to stay here.

  30. Merricat says:

    This obsession with trashing the Sussexes is pathological. I did not anticipate the entire British monarchy and their tabloid army becoming bunny-boilers, but here we are.

  31. Quincytoo says:

    Camilla Tominey has the lazy Cambridge’s confused with the hard working Sussex’s

  32. Billie says:

    LOL the Royal family gets nothing out of their service, right? It’s totally pro bono, amirite?

  33. L84Tea says:

    All I hear from Tomney is “our Harry would never write this…this was clearly written by The American”. Yep, it’s all that black American’s fault!

  34. Lunasf17 says:

    I think M was smart enough to look around and was like uhh Harry you know this isn’t gonna last much longer? The peasants are ready to eat the rich and sick of supporting lazy, entitled royals who did nothing to earn that lifestyle and be be born to a certain family while they struggle to feed their kids? And then all the racist treatment and abuse piled on. I do feel kind of bad for Harry, he is in a weird spot. On one hand he was born into this privilege (and tragic) existence and benefited from this immense wealth and in turn the taxpayers and his family think he owes them “service.” I’m not familiar enough with British culture but their service definition seem different than my American perception for their public figures. He seems like a good guy but is in a tough spot IMO.

  35. kelleybelle says:

    And Cameltoe Meanie will never understand what real journalism is.

  36. Vanessa says:

    I think the Sussex’s know the difference but the questions isn’t does the royal family and their carnival 🎡 expects know the difference. Because it’s clear for the past century the royals don’t bring in revenue for their so called charities that Kate allowed her charities to fold she spent years away for her charities. If the royal family were oh so concerned for public service why did the queen choose in the middle of global health crisis take away Charities who were struggling for donations away from Meghan and Harry. The difference between the royal family and the Sussex’s are that everything the Sussex’s do have impact actually helps people their charities work actually bring in resources and value. Where the royal family idea of charity work is to get their pictures taken by their favorite royal reporters who kiss their ass and write glowing reviews about how Amazing they are .

  37. Miranda says:

    What, exactly, is the royal family trying to accomplish with all this petty bullshit? Do they honestly think that they can lure Harry back to his “rightful” position by talking shit about his wife?

  38. GrnieWnie says:

    oh, oh, got it. If you’re born in California, you can’t possibly understand public service. You’ve basically got an intellectual disability. You must be born with pristine blue blood to grasp this deeply complex concept.

    Good to know that the Queen comes down on those who overstep. So…has she come down on Prince Andrew? Or is being friends with a pedophile rapist not overstepping? Those of us with Californian intellects want to know.

    • HeatherC says:

      It was definitely a service. How many people get a private puppet show from an actual Duke? Sure the circumstances could be better, being trafficked is definitely a downer but hey he tried!

      ** all the above is written in high grade sarcasm but I bet there is a slice of Britain/BRF that believes this **

  39. Petra says:

    The more articles the rota writes, the more I see the BRF are powerless. If BRF had any influence on the rota, they would have asked them to stop writing about Harry and Meghan. The truth is the more shit they write against Harry and Meghan, the BRF look worst to the world.

  40. OriginalLala says:

    Jeebus H Cripes, this is insane – how many charities and NFPs are founded and run (successfully I might add) by non-royals? LITERALLY THOUSANDS. They need to stop this nonsense because it’s only making them look worse and worse.

    #AbolishTheMonarchy

  41. Beech says:

    On one hand, waving from a balcony, cutting ribbons, dripping either with ribbon and medals or dazzling gems on your head, the other hand, paying for a roof and the more immediate needs of a women’s shelter. The last, one of many.

  42. line says:

    It might sound like serie The Crown the first time Diana meets the Windsors, they are welcoming and warm and then once engaged to Charles they show their true faces by becoming cold, contemptuous and cruel.

    Add to that Harry was far too young to remember how the royal family and the aristocrats treated his mother. Before Meghan came into his life, he thought that only the media were responsible for Diana’s misfortune.So I think he thought Meghan would get the same treatment as Kate, Autumn and Mike from the family.

    • Duch says:

      wow, that’s a fascinating angle. I’d never thought of that before – that PH was too young to know if the family shunning Diana, and so was just angry at the media. that explains a lot about his hopes and his expectations as Meghan joined, and his comments about joining a family she’d never had. and why he allegedly(?) went off on P William for not being more supportive of Meghan.

      thanks for sharing!

  43. These carnival of so-called royal experts Tominey and Levin are just so incensed and enraged that their dire prediction of the Sussexes’ exit from the RF did not happen. They said that Harry will regret to turn from a prince to a pauper. That Meghan, frustrated from her high-pressure duchessing job, will go back to lifestyle blogging (and what not). Well, less than a year later, Harry and Meghan are having the best time of their life in the USA. So everybody in the UK has gone deranged and fuming with anger. They have lost big time to Harry and Meghan— the lot RRs, RF, and these archaic courtiers. After losing the Sussexes, they all look jurassic.

  44. Over it says:

    I was wondering when rocwilder Camilla and bulldog Angela would come out of their pen to bark racist unhinged bullshit. They didn’t say public service, they said service. If petty Betty and her family that she doesn’t care as much for as she does for the power that being queen provides, really believed in public service, then they would do it without stealing from the tax payers. They have enough personal wealth to be able to serve and still rule. But nope they want to have their cake and eat it too and then have the f——ing nerve to get salty when Harry a war veteran who served his country for 10 years doing two tours, doesn’t embody what public service is, then I don’t what does.

  45. Amy Bee says:

    The mean issue here is that the Sussexes have a different philosophy as what is public service which actually involves helping people while the Royal Family sees public service as cutting ribbons. It is said that when Diana got involved in the AIDS crisis that the Queen asked why she was doing this and that it was better to cut ribbons. I think Harry, inspired by his mother, always wanted to do more and then met someone who wanted to do the same.

    • Dee Kay says:

      I remember when Harry started his Botswana foundation that it felt very Diana-inspired. I think Harry has modeled a lot of his thinking about how to create and collaborate with non-profit organizations on his mother’s work, he did that kind of work for years before he met Meghan. Meghan and he have a very similar vision and definition of how they can serve, which is partly why they are such a good match.

  46. Izzy says:

    So raising money by putting together a cookbook, starting Invictus Games, serving in the military, handing out school supplies to kids who need them, developing a capsule collection that raises money to help women obtain clothes to wear to jobs and prep for interviews… not service.

    Ribbon cutting, plaque unveiling, spreading disease by train, sitting and talking about problems, and writing a survey a high schooler could do… service.

    Got it.

  47. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    What beggars belief is that in the 21st century, the British STILL have a racist institution that believes people are born to rule solely because of their superior bloodline. Most of the civilized world has done away with this type of racism. Oh, and that a monarchy would protect a rapist and let Andrew still be called “HRH” and live off public money. Now THAT beggars belief.

    Until the British get rid of their racist institution and stop protecting rapists because of their superior bloodline, they can just STFU about criticizing anyone else.

  48. L4frimaire says:

    These people revere the Queen, no matter what, so of course talking back in any capacity is completely taboo. Public service and philanthropy are different. If you work in the government and return to the private sector, that doesn’t mean you stop caring about what you advocated for. If you step away from royal life, as complicated as it is, does not mean you stop caring about causes and championing them. My only quibble with the Sussexes statement is that they should have acknowledged that what they are doing is not the same as their previous role, and accepted that. Could the Queen have let them keep some of the patronages as non- working royals? Absolutely, especially if they agreed to spend some time in UK. However, they felt the hammer approach instead of a conciliatory approach was what the public, specifically the tabloids, demanded. I absolutely agree that service is universal and you can serve in a private capacity. The problem with this whole thing is the fact that it was dragged out so long and dragged out so publicly. It should have been treated more as a transition instead of a pause, but that would require cooperation and civility, which the royals did not think is required of them, especially when dealing with Meghan. Their lack of civility toward her is why they are here. As for the complaining about Spotify and Netflix, what actually is behind the problem with it? They said they would not take public funding and earn their own money. It bothers them that they inked big deals so quickly. “Service is universal” will enter our lexicon and that is what we will remember once all this fury dies down.

  49. colleen says:

    What service do they keep harping on? The monarchy believes it’s their God-given right to rule a commonwealth at the support of taxpayers and colonization.

    Are we classifying service as a few Zoom calls, some maskless trips, and “bringing awareness” to patronage’s while the rest is the time being a pedo, trimming rose bushes, shopping, and being incandescent with rage?

    M&H doing actual volunteer work and showing up and asking what people need > Zoom calls thanking NHS employees after prancing around three countries and a red carpet maskless

  50. Jezebel's Lacefront says:

    When you grow up feasting on myth and reality smacks you on the head, bitterness lingers on the tongue like the headiest of wines.

    I can’t imagine living with that mindset. But, I’m glad I don’t.

  51. Wiglet Watcher says:

    No where in these types of articles am I finding what the monarchy supporters or the palace itself classified as “service” and they can’t claim “this” isn’t “that” without explaining the difference. Instead they just attack Meghan?

  52. Ruth says:

    How… how is this supposed to help the royals? These arguments are only further elucidating the oxymoronic concept that is “royal service”. I don’t get how people don’t see right through it all.

  53. Ann says:

    I read the Washington Post, and a year or so ago it had a “Retropolis” article about a young Queen Elizabeth visiting a DC area American grocery store in 1957. She was surprised that shoppers could choose their own items off the shelves. She probably hasn’t evolved in life skills. Has she been to a grocery store since? It probably counted as an “act of service.”

  54. aquarius64 says:

    Levin and Tominey. Two cauldron stirrers that need to stay within their coven before the witch hunters catch up with them.

  55. Monica says:

    These royal press people sound hysterical, frankly. They are also making the Queen sound like an outright abuser—”Look what you made me do—and after all I did for you!” Just confirming that H&M did the right thing for themselves and their child(ren).

  56. CrazyHeCallsMe says:

    Has anyone else read of this? It seems Prince Charles is expanding the Prince’s Trust into the U.S.
    https://people.com/music/lionel-richie-says-princes-trust-usa-tells-young-leaders-failure-not-an-option/
    Guess the family is following H&M to the States..lol

  57. Noor says:

    Tominey said philanthropy is not public service. It appears that Tominey does not understand what is philanthropy.

    Philanthropy seeks to address the root causes of osicail issues and is therefore a form of public service.

    The Duke of Cambridge Royal foundation for example is a philanthropic organisation.

  58. Miss America says:

    Isn’t philanthropy more commendable than duty? It’s a choice, duty to serve as a means of currying favor so the peasants don’t overthrow the monarchy, seems selfish if anything. It serves the royal families interests. H&M do it by choice because they care, not because they’re obliged to…

  59. Mila says:

    The Sussex’s should only care as much for the royal family as they did and do for them [not at all]. It seems very much the palace want to see them begging and are embarrassed and shocked by the fact they absolutely do not care, nor need them for anything. This hasn’t turned out like they had hoped.

  60. Mila says:

    It’s weird did they think the Sussex’s weren’t going to work and get jobs just because they cut them off?? 🤔

  61. Noor says:

    These shocking statistics tell a different story from the Palace and journalists hype about the royal patronage.

    1. Giving Evidence, a research think tank, found that 74% of charities with royal patrons did not receive any royal visits in 2019 and there was no evidence that royal patrons increase a charity revenue.

    2. According to Daily Mail article on 23 July 2020, Giving Assistant.org analysed royal visits to charities and found that Prince Charles has 400 patronages but conducted 48 visits in the past year while Countess Sophie has 70 patronages and made 20 visits . Prince Micheal of Kent has 100 patronages with zero visit.

  62. Millie says:

    As an actual public servant (a person who works for the government and whose job is focussed on offering a service to the public), I find it insulting that the royal family think they offer a service to the British people. Does the general public require someone to engage in ribbon cutting ceremonies? What’s the return on investment for British tax payers? They do not serve the public. They only serve themselves by engaging in PR that allows them to maintain their power and wealth with little to no oversight or accountability. That’s the antithesis of being a public servant.

    I’m also annoyed that they’re implying that an American would be too stupid to know what public service is. If you live in a country with a government, you have public service. Meghan majored in international studies and once worked at an American Embassy. She knows what public service is.

  63. Robert says:

    Let me get this straight. The royal family get money from the taxpayers. And because of this they are expected to do openings and cut ribbons. That’s not duty, that’s their jobs.

  64. boyd says:

    When someone says ” you cannot have your cake and eat it too” or “one cannot have the best of both worlds” I say rubbish!!!!! The BRF needs to cease telling people only they can do Public Service.

  65. boyd says:

    Patronages. Its a “Hey look over there: instead of looking at my wonderful life and wealth that you are paying for and allowed me to build massive wealth,, “”And now its off to Ascot”.

Commenting Guidelines

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment