Prince Charles & William will have meetings to ‘discuss the future of the monarchy’

The Funeral Of Prince Philip, Duke Of Edinburgh Is Held In Windsor

To be clear, the Windsor clan knew that they screwed up pretty quickly last year. Once the Sussexit was formalized and it was clear that Prince Harry and Meghan would begin to build their new life in California, the sense of panic and dread crept into Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. So many carefully laid plans all got blown up and they had no one but themselves to blame. It’s not that Harry and Meghan were the future of the monarchy, it’s that H&M represented the modern monarchy, an image the Windsors could have milked for decades, if not for the Windsors’ jealousy, racism and pettiness. Which is why Buckingham Palace tried to “rebrand” the still-working Windsors as the “Magnificent Seven” last December. By March of this year, the Magnificent Seven seemed to be dead already. And so here we are: Prince Charles and Prince William will be holding a series of meetings to discuss the post-Sussexit, post-Philip future of the monarchy.

Princes Charles and William will meet to discuss the future of the monarchy after the death of Prince Philip, reports say. The two heirs will reportedly plan with the Queen which members of ‘The Firm’ will be working Royals and what they should do. It comes after the Duke of Edinburgh’s death on April 9 raised questions over if his hundreds of patronages should be passed down.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s departure complicated matters by reducing the number of people available to help the monarch in high-profile roles. Sources told the Telegraph official and personal duties cannot be decided separately because they are too closely linked. Prince Charles is said to be taking the lead in the talks due to him becoming king first and because any immediate decisions will impact his reign. But he is understood to have wanted his son the Duke of Cambridge involved every step of the way for major policies that affect him when he inherits the throne.

Meanwhile Prince Edward and Sophie, Countess of Wessex are believed to be stepping into the void left by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s exit. They are expected to take on bigger roles despite already fulfilling 544 duties as of the last year before the coronavirus lockdown. Harry and Meghan did 558 jobs between them in 2019, meaning the Royals have to review how these will be redistributed.

Prince Andrew, who stepped back from duties after his Newsnight interview over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, also has roles that may need to be dished out. The Duke of York, Prince Philip and Prince Harry have hundreds of patronages and military titles that now need to be taken on. The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge are expected to decide over the next few weeks and months how they will tackle the issues. They are said to have rocketed in importance for the Queen and Charles after Harry and Meghan’s review period ended last month. But the decline in the Duke of Edinburgh’s health followed by his death just over a week ago shifted the focus.

Prince Charles had wanted a smaller monarchy made up of the Queen, Prince Philip, himself, his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, the Cambridges and Prince Harry. In these plans the Duke of Sussex was expected to help out until William and Kate’s children George, Charlotte and Louis grew up and took on roles.

Insiders revealed Charles, William and the Queen will need to discuss whether to continue with thousands of engagements annually or cut them down. A source said: ‘The question is whether you start off by deciding how many patronages and engagements there should be, and then work out how many people are needed to achieve them, or whether you decide how many people there should be, which will dictate how many engagements and patronages they can take on.’

[From The Daily Mail]

First of all, surely Prince Philip’s massive list of patronages had already been distributed to other people when he retired in 2017? Damn, Philip was still technically patron of a lot of charities when he passed? That’s odd. And they’re so f–king mad that Harry didn’t come crawling back to them. They put everything on hold with the hope that Harry’s California experiment would fail and he would beg them to come back. Nope! Too bad Charles, the Queen and William were too bloody short-sighted to take Harry and Meghan up on their offer to remain half-in. H&M would have taken on dozens of patronages.

As for the rest of this… it’s absolutely CLASSIC that the closer William gets to power, the more he lowers expectations. William’s current list of patronages is so weak, and he could and should take on so much of his father’s work and grandfather’s work. But these meetings are going to be William saying “I’m not doing that!” and then everyone will have to agree that the Windsors should be doing less because William is such a lazy ass.

The Funeral Of Prince Philip, Duke Of Edinburgh Is Held In Windsor

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN.

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

219 Responses to “Prince Charles & William will have meetings to ‘discuss the future of the monarchy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kate B says:

    They don’t need to have any meetings. Even *I* can tell them the future of their *monarchy*….

    • Alexandria says:

      These people are just delusional and arrogant. Even I can tell them how to heal the rift and I’ll just charge them and donate to Archewell. But of course they won’t do the common sense things. Instead they will waste taxpayer money on a nonsensical, bloated PR campaign filled with “a senior royal insider has made it known that xxx”, X-Ray lip reader articles, body language expert articles, sad sad Charles who really really tried but damn Harry is stubborn, KKKate cried variations, and TOB’s rosy future as the next King (let’s just forget Charles is there). We see you!

      • Madelaine says:

        Two of the most prominent Crown employees were to initially be exiled to some remote location in Africa before they decided to take matters in their own hands: can we please take a minute to talk about how the Firm’s despicable management of its human resources, before we shift to the fact that William’s strained facial features on every photograph evidence his megalomaniac delusions of self-importance. Including such a self-serving egomaniac to the momentous conversation on the future of the English monarchy is actually the monarchy’s closest move to its own termination. Since when do you ask the mad man to choose his medication, especially when that institution has produced two heirs none of whom can boast leadership, problem-shooting abilities or even a minimal understanding of the racial stakes and challenges facing the century?!

        Despite the fact that William’s archaic self-perception as some sort of absolute Louis 14th monarch in the making, would have driven a wedge between him and Lady Diana, had she been alive, his public demeanor and private manipulations of family matters are indicative of early signs of ferocious jealousy and paranoid madness unfit for a king.
        As for Charles, no English citizen in their right mind can condone his emotional abuse of Diana, let alone the part he played in her very convenient death. The Commonwealth countries are therefore entitled to secede if their future is gambled with by two men lacking fitness of character and long-term perspective to such an irretrievable degree.

      • Christine says:

        I had to clean my computer of the coffee I spit at it after “KKKate”. That needs to stick, until these horrible people actually acknowledge that they TORTURED Meghan and Harry out of England, and make it right. Whatever that looks like, for these privileged pieces of poo.

        *sigh* It is SO HARD not to say all of the bad words.

      • nutella toast says:

        @madelaine True on William’s facial features and physicality unless he’s mocking the delivery guy while having a bro night – he looked pretty relaxed in that footage.

    • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

      PwBT already said (a few times) that they will do “a few “big” projects” instead and drastically cut down the number of patronages to practically nothing. He (and Keen) do NOT want to work…they only want the money and perks.

      Even a blind man sitting on the top of a mountain in the Himalayas, w/out internet access, could see this coming.

    • Jules says:

      Yup. And we need to re-focus on the pedo Andrew. No we have not forgotten and he will not get away with it.

      • booboocita says:

        So much THIS ^^^^^. Harry’s back in California, Philip is buried, and there are no more distractions. As Philip himself might say, “Get on with it.” Arrest the mojo, or at least compel him to submit to questioning by the FBI. It’ll never happen, of course, but it needs to happen.

      • Louise says:

        Exactly! Andrew has patronages which “MAY need to be redistributed”?! WTAF.

      • Christine says:


  2. Sofia says:

    The issue isn’t needed more or less working royals, it’s needing someone who can be charismatic and get people interested in the royals. Right now the Windsors have no-one like that until the Cambridge kids grow up and their lives become tabloid fodder. They can make every working royal do 500 engagements a year, cut/add working royals etc etc but it won’t drive interest for the monarchy.

    • Betsy says:

      How would they know? Since Meghan and Harry left, there hasn’t been a young person doing engagements. Bill and Cathy only bother with engagements when they’re in competition with someone.

    • BABSORIG says:

      So IOW, they shouldn’t have stripped the Sussexes of their patronages, no? It was absolutely not necessary. The Windsor klan are notorious for cutting off their nose to spite their face. In their obsession to spite the Sussexes and perhaps humiliate them (laughably it backfired big time),🙆🏾🙆🏾 they ended up screwing themselves so far up the arse in very a spectacular way 🎆🎆🎆
      Oh well, the Sussexes live on and Charles and William meet to figure out how to survive…c’est la vie, I guess. 🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️🤷🏾‍♂️

  3. Izzy says:

    So they’re laying the groundwork for their strategy: reduce the number of patronages and workload, and blame Harry and Meghan for it.

    • SarahCS says:

      And we have a winner. We see you Cain and Unable.

      • Red Snapper says:

        “Prince Charles had wanted a smaller monarchy made up of the Queen, Prince Philip, himself, his wife the Duchess of Cornwall, the Cambridges and Prince Harry. ”

        Like Meghan doesn’t even exist. Very much not a racist family then.

      • Babz says:

        @Red Snapper, the lack of Meghan’s name in that paragraph was disgusting. That gap where her name should be could be seen from space. Unless the reporter was lazy (probably) and pulled that sentence from earlier stories on the subject before Harry married, then one can only assume she has already been deliberately erased from the family and the Firm. They aren’t giving an inch, and it’s going to come back to haunt them very soon.

      • Ann says:

        Looking at what Red Snapper said….what Charles and William wanted was for Harry never to get married. Charles has always counted only the heir (himself) and his immediate offspring as counting. Any kids Harry might have were second-rate before he even reached 18. I wouldn’t be surprised if they discouraged him from marrying at all, frankly. Those pesky spouses and not-first-born kids expect to be treated like they matter, how dare they.

      • Brielle says:

        @red snapper they were clear,they told him that they didn’t have money for her,that she should continue acting:she wasn’t in the plans…

      • Deering24 says:

        Honestly, every time I read that the RF wanted Harry to have no life outside propping William up, it’s still chilling. William _has_ to be mentally ill for them to go to these lengths—and to keep expecting against all logic that Harry will come back.

    • Belli says:

      Exactly. Without H&M they’re screwed. The only working royals in that generation left are W&K and we know how much they’ll do.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Add to the fact that they are also dull and uninspiring to the masses, unlike Harry and Meghan. Harry and Meghan performed more duties the year that Meghan was pregnant yet they were jealous and envious of Harry and Meghan, so Baldimort and Keen Doucheness ran them out of the country. You reap what you sow, now suck it up and work for once.

    • Cessily says:

      They entire BRF and staff will be blaming them for a long time unless someone steps in and says enough to the media.. be it the courts or queen. (Highly unlikely to happen I know)
      My thought is that the taxpayers should decide, they pay for all of this so let them choose.
      Also a note for the future.. someday the young Cambridge’s will be dating and marrying, not getting your house(palace) in order will make their futures miserable also and may leave them old and single.. The monarchy needs heirs to continue but to marry into that after all this is insanity.

      • Bess says:

        That’s why I wonder why Meghan was so eager to jump right into the fire and marry into the royal family. Did no one warn her about Diana and Sarah Ferguson?

      • FicklePickle says:

        @Bess Honestly I’m willing to bet that she, like many Americans, thought that the BRF would have examined what went wrong in previous decades and made at least some small effort to make things less awful.

        Or maybe she assumed that the issue was solely with the Charles and Diana combo, and/or that Andrew and Fergie were just messy, messy bitches like that. She’s not that much older than I, and I certainly didn’t realize there were major systemic issues at play beyond Charles being a whiney jealous little ass until Meghan came along.

    • GuestWho says:

      I vaguely remember an article a couple of years ago (? – Covid times move differently, it could have been this year) about how billy was going to do monarchy differently and cut out the bread and butter visits and focus on the foundation to dole out money (not time). It was ALWAYS lazy Bill’s intention to stop doing the work his father and grandparents did – nothing to do with M&H at all (except that they would have been showing him up for his entire reign).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Insiders revealed Charles, William and the Queen will need to discuss whether to continue with thousands of engagements annually or cut them down.”

        EXACTLY, You will see a massive reduction in the number of Royal engagements and a massive outcry from the tax paying public for not getting a Royal in attendance at their local village fete.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Exactly. This is Will’s chance to lay out the groundwork for his vision of being a lazy king. He’s been putting out the “less quantity, more focus and impact” line for years.

      • equality says:

        But you have to do something to inspire people to donate to your foundation. Or is he actually planning to give away the RF’s own money?

      • Sid says:

        You are right Guest, and the talk of William wanting to cut down on the BRF’s engagements once he was king even goes back to the early years of his marriage. I remember it distinctly. I always felt that one of the reasons for his treatment of Meghan was because her go-getter attitude and willingness to work threw a wrench in his plans to get the people accustomed to the idea of him, Kate, and Harry not having the sort of engagement numbers of the previous generations. Then it would be smooth sailing for little work during his potential reign.

    • Sunshine says:

      Izzy I actually believe this will be their excuse to bring Andrew back to work.

      • lanne says:

        Andrew in, Meghan out. Okay. Not racists here. None atall.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @ Sunshine – Andrew will never happen. Andrew is in permanent retirement.

        The tax paying UK public does not want to see Andrew at any engagements.

      • Jaded says:

        As Ghilaine Maxwell’s trial looms closer and closer, you’ll rarely see Andrew. He’s sitting at home sharting his pants wondering if she’s going to sing and what else will be revealed about his dance with the devil.

    • Alexandria says:

      Yeah blame two employees for leaving their toxic workplace. A workplace with doozy HR and no backup plan, no strategy. Critics love to say that Charles always wanted to have a slimmed down monarchy so it wasn’t racist for Archie not to have a title in future and for Meghan to be unfunded. But these critics and rota rats cannot produce the proof that this was made known to Harry before he got engaged. Nor can they produce proof that he wanted Harry to be a non working royal. If so why did you yank Harry out of the army eh? Fools. I hope a good journalist writes a book about all these contradictions and proves that when we circle back, it’s about racism!

    • Brielle says:

      I mean at this point are these courtiers just unprepared ? How can u still talk about Harry and Meghan in the plans when they left a year ago ? Are these two so powerful?

  4. BearcatLawyer says:

    Don’t take taxpayer funds and they can do f#%^ all for all I care. But since they get so ridiculously much from the public purse, they need to get their butts off the sofas and hustle for their patronages EVERY DAY. And I am not talking about three Zoom calls per day either.

  5. Belli says:

    Willy will keep up the story of wanting to do fewer engagements with fewer charities to have “more focus” and “more impact” for the select few.

    Which is bull, but won’t get reported as bull.

    Laziness reigns eternal with The Other Brother.

    • Harper says:

      And half of Will’s charities will be sports-related; the other half will be support groups for local pubs.

  6. Snuffles says:

    Uh, oh! William and Kate are going to have to actually work!

    Not to be taking William’s side, because he IS lazy and will probably still complain about the work load even if they do cut back. And he’ll continue to half ass what he does do.

    That said, The Firm seems more concerned about QUANTITY vs QUALITY. All they care about is pumping up the numbers in the court circular so they can point to their “busy schedules” to justify their enormous funding. But in reality it’s all just shallow busy work that provides no benefits to these charities and organizations at all.

    If they are wise, they would take this opportunity to reinvent the monarchy and redefine their goals and purpose. And they should bring in some outside advisers. Because sitting around the table assigning the same tasks to different people ain’t going to cut it.

    Even if Harry and Meghan DID stay, it wasn’t going to cut it because 75% of their team are TOO OLD and should be retired by now.

    • Snuffles says:

      And if they are so determined to keep everything the same, then Charles will have to suck it up and put the other grandchildren and their spouses to work. Zara and Mike, Eugenie and Jack, Beatrice and Eduardo. And Lady Louise when she turns 18. What about Margaret’s kids and grandkids? Are any of them up for it?

      • lanne says:

        Lord Snowden is taking over the Princes Trust, since Willnot won’t.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Per Robert Hazel author of The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy:

        There are strong arguments for keeping the working Royal team as small as you can, for obvious reasons. The smaller the size of the team, the less the risk that one of them will go rogue or get into trouble. But the British royal family’s team is large because of the size of the country and because of the very strong tradition of royal engagements. They need a large team to service the demand. Talk to any lord lieutenant—they’re the queen’s representatives in each county, who organize the bids for royal visits. I know our local lord lieutenant very well, and he says that the demand for royal visits, also known as “bread & butter engagements”, far exceeds what the palace can supply. I have no doubt that it’s similar in other counties. That’s the dilemma that they face. That’s why, although Prince Charles has said that he would like to slim down the size of the royal family, by which he means have a smaller team, in practice he’ll find that quite difficult when he becomes king.

        Take Norway, which has a population of 5 million. Their royal team is four people. The king and queen, and the crown prince and crown princess, and a team of four people can service a population of 5 million. The population of the U.K. is 66 million, so it’s 13 times larger than that of Norway, and one of the main functions of the royal family is to get out there and be seen. You need a much bigger team, and the British royal family team, when I wrote that, was 15 people. It’s now shrunk by three. It lost Prince Andrew at the end of 2019, and it lost Harry and Meghan at the beginning of last year, so it’s now down to 12.

        BayTampaBay’s opinion: The BRF is up Schitt’s creek without a paddle.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Ianne – Lord Snowden is much more qualified tp take over Executive Leadership of the Princes Trust than Willnot. Lord Snowdon will do an excellent job.

      • Babz says:

        @BTB, I was just coming here to say the same thing. William would destroy that organization because he isn’t qualified to take on any of Charles’ charities. His lack of work ethic alone would run it into the ground. And God help the Duchy of Cornwall when that passes to him. Unless there has been massive training taking place behind the scenes, William has shown no skill sets to manage enterprises that large and important. Or the interest to do anything but take the money that comes from the Duchy. I’m glad Lord Snowdon stepped up. I think he will do a good job.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay – so from a numbers standpoint there’s going to have be a reduction in public appearances, especially as the workhorses like Anne get older. And I think the public may accept that even if there are some growing pains initially and the public adjusts to a new normal.

        But I think the key is going to be – are they seeing the FFK and FFQC work? Will and Kate say they wont be doing bread and butter, so what are they going to be doing? I think people will adjust to fewer bread and butter engagements if Will and Kate are still visibly working. If they just zoom once a week and show up to the big state dinners so Kate can wear a tiara, there will be a lot of resentment.

      • Betsy says:

        @Ianne – William’s laziness just makes me irate. It’s just unbelievable.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – What is so stupid to me is the Baldy & Wiglet do not recognize that “Bread and Butter” engagements outside of London are the easiest to do. You get bang-for-the buck because you can meet & interact with more subjects one-on-one in a less formal setting. The Queen Mother, in her younger days, and Anne, still working full time at the age of 70, get this and arrange(d) there schedules so they would work two days a week doing 6-8 engagements a day in a community-village-city-hamlet in non-metro London. The Queen Mother LOVED doing Scottish engagements of this type.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay that’s always been the stupid thing about W&K. Get out there, whether in London, Norfolk, or a day trip somewhere, and do 4-5 engagements in a day, 2-3 days a week, and over the course of 4 months you have, what, 400 engagements? More? And you’re still working less than part-time. They have just refused to do that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I read this story somewhere about five years ago: Anne was out in the middle of nowhere traveling from one engagement to the next and somehow she was 30 minutes ahead of schedule. As she & her entourage are traveling they pass a car boot sale in a village Church car park and she tells the driver to “pill over because I want to see what is going on”. Anne get out of the car and begins to shop this car boot sale and buys something. Anne gets back into her car and travels to the next engagement arriving only 4 minutes late or behind schedule.

        The people of this “village” still talk about this “visit” from Princess Anne to their car boot (Yank=yard sale) sale.

        Wigley & Baldy need to do more of this type of thing. Why do I have a gut feeling that Kate hates(fears???) leaving Apartment 1A and/or Anmer Hall has has her shopping and hairdresser brought to her?

      • Ann says:

        I don’t know much about the current Lord Snowden but it seems like his father, Margaret’s husband, was well-liked by the family. He wasn’t titled but he was fairly Posh, was charming and well-mannered, and was a pretty darned good photographer. They continued to use him for royal pictures even after the divorce. He couldn’t keep it in his pants, but then neither could Philip, apparently. Not a deal-killer for the Windsors.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “He wasn’t titled but he was fairly Posh”

        Anthony Armstrong-Jones was VERY POSH and titled.

        QEII granted him the title “Earl of Snowdon” upon his marriage to Margaret as the Queen Mother wanted ALL her grandchildren to be titled and QEII and Philip “got on” with him very well.

        However he did not have the style of “HRH.

      • Tangerinetree says:

        Please remember:
        “David Albert Charles Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon (born 3 November 1961), styled as Viscount Linley until 2017 and known professionally as David Linley ” was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s flight list when it became public in 2020.
        He and his wife also divorced that same year. The RF may not be trying to push his name out there.

    • Doulton says:

      Potential star: @artchatto on Instagram. His brother, Sam, is a less beefy artist. Princess Margaret’s grandsons through her daughter, Lady Sarah Chatto. “You can’t spell party without Arty,” as one says.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The BRF does around 3200 engagements a year. Between them, Charles and Anne do 500 each. It is entirely possible for 5-6 people to still cover 3200 engagements a year, particularly if they are centrally scheduled.

      Now the system is, everyone schedules themselves. You can end up with three royals in the same town at the same time. Instead do all the scheduling from one staff, assign one royal to the town to do all three events. Easy.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Glad to see you back and posting!

        Amazing to know that the over 70 generation are running rings around the youngsters!

  7. Guest says:

    If the UK was smart they would use this to ask why they are paying a ton of money for people who are doing nothing.

  8. Me says:

    It’s spring and the daffodils are in bloom…PWT just wants to hang out in Norfolk at an undisclosed location and garden.

  9. ThatgirlThere says:

    Lol. Whatever. Useless, raggedy backwards monarchy.

  10. Seraphina says:

    I can only speak for where I worked and have worked, but when a vacancy pops up, that will not be filled, my coworkers and I usually have to pick up the slack. Must be nice to live off of the public purse and then cut your workload and what is expected of you.

    • Cecilia says:

      Its funny because they opened a can of worms.
      During queen Elizabeths reign the argument for maintaining a monarchy was that they preform public service. It was the sole reason for maintaining their lifestyle. So what would the public think about funding the royals if that public service becomes significantly less (fewer engagements)? Especially since its fully possible to support charities while earning a living of your own, just ask every volunteer. Add in the fact that charities aren’t exactly jumping to have a royal patron anymore….

      Yeah we will see how this goes.

      Also, the royals probably see this as a win because it would offer as a good argument to prevent harry’s children from ever becoming prince/princess

  11. TheOriginalMia says:

    It would be so easy just to require the FFK&Q to get off their lazy butts to work, but that’s not possible with the rage monster, Prince Incandescent. No sympathies for the monarchy. They had a dynamic couple and they abused them so much they fled to another country. The Monarchy should be abolished after the Queen dies. William will be a horrible, lazy monarch.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “It would be so easy just to require the FFK&Q to get off their lazy butts to work”

      I do not see it happening as I do not think Baldy & Wiglet are actually capable of doing what Anne, Charles, Camilla, Sophie, Duke of Richmond, Rose Hanbury and David Rocksavage do. You do not have to be Royal but you do have to be seen working to have positive public profile.

  12. lanne says:

    How on earth can this monarchy be so bad at messaging? First, the message is that Harry and Meghan are not important and not needed, are “too Hollywood” and take up too much space, and now the message is that the monarchy can’t function without them. The RF doesn’t want the Sussexes, but they need the Sussexes. The monarchy needs the Sussexes, but doesn’t want the Sussexes. So what is it?

    We all here know the truth: the Sussexes were supposed to do the work while the Cambridges got the credit. The Cambridges seem to have no idea that love and loyalty must be earned, that the Queen earned it, Diana earned it, and Harry earned it through their actions. They think it should be given based on their position, and they don’t want anyone else to have love if they don’t have it. William and Kate have not done one single thing to earn the love or respect of the people of the UK.

    Can anyone name one substantial thing that the Cambridges have done? Ask anyone on the street what Heads Together is, and what answers will they get? (mumble mumble mental health) Earthshot? What is it? What’s the goal? Early Years? What’s that? All they have are image–Perfect Family. We’ve all seen that game play out. I’m surprised they’re even trying it, especially with what we all saw happen to the Waleses.

    I have no idea what British Brand Royal stands for post Queen. I don’t think they do either. They are essentially a Victorian monarchy trying to operate in the 21st century and have no idea how.

    People who like to royal watch have lots of interesting choices in Europe. The British royal family risks losing popularity to these other, younger monarchs and monarchs-in-waiting. People already love style watching Queens Maxima and Letitia (and when will royal writers start noticing that successful women have married into monarchies without turning into silent royal Barbie Dolls?). I’m sad the the Go Fug Yourself royal posts turned into racist cesspools–I rather enjoyed looking at the pictures of the other royals (I fought the good fight against the racist Karens over there but I got tired of it and quit). The point is, there are other more interesting royal families out there–the Brits aren’t the only game in town. ‘

    Those crisis managers they hired need to get to work stat. Although there are quite a few Celebitches who would do an awesome job if called to the task!!

    • Cessily says:

      I enjoy following the other monarchies in various countries. I will say the European countries Monarchy’s do not seem to feed the media such cutthroat leaks. Which truthfully is more enjoyable and “Royal” makes you wonder if they look at the tabloid leaks like many Canadians look at “trailer park boys” lol. (You watch it because it’s there but cringe through it all)

      • Sid says:

        For the younger generations in some of those European houses, there actually seems to be genuine love in the immediate family circle. King Felipe, Crown Princess Victoria, King Willem-Alexander all seem to genuinely adore their spouses and children and look to be creating stable, happy environments for them. I can’t imagine that Leonor or Estelle will be throwing their younger siblings to the media wolves in exchange for better press.

    • Keroppi says:

      To be fair, that 5 question survey for the Early Years was pretty monumental!

    • iconoclast59 says:

      Go Fug Yourself (GFY) has really dialed back on their royals coverage. They used to post Royals Round Up every Friday, but it’s become more and more intermittent. The women who run GFY say it’s because the royals are doing less because of COVID. That’s true, but I think the real reason is because of the H&M controversy. They try to stay “neutral,” but by not calling out the obvious machinations of KP, they’re essentially being anti-H&M. As they say, silence equals consent.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        To be fair to The Fug Girls, they are first and foremost a fashion blog.

      • Kalana says:

        The racism both by the BRF and from some of their commentators were out of control and you could tell Jessica at least was just beyond done with dealing with it.

      • lanne says:

        They openly discussed why they stopped doing Royals Roundup. They are first and foremost a fashion blog, and the RR was supposed to showcase the fashions of the royals that week. The problem was that the anti-Meghan hatred was so toxic that it overwhelmed all other discussion. It was all the standard tabloid trash repeated ad nauseum. I and many other commenters responded to it, provided alternative takes, but it just got to be too much. The Fug Girls, to be fair, did respond to some of the nastier vitriol, but truly, it got to be overwhelming. I appreciated the fact that they said they thought they could moderate the hatred themselves, but they realized that a) they weren’t really equipped to do so, as 2 white women, and 2) it was too ardous a task for them. So they shut it down. It was the right choice, I think.

        Perhaps in the future they will start posting royal fashion articles and not allow comments, so people can admire pretty clothes. Then again, perhaps they need comments to help monetize their site.

      • ClaireB says:

        I quit visiting the GFY specifically because of their ridiculously sugary coverage of Kate. I didn’t know anything about her except the mean “Waity Katie” nickname, but even I could see that she was putting a foot wrong with her clothing mishaps and her inability to speak in public, and GFY just kept praising her hair and clothes. I realize that the Fug ladies went all in on the romance of Kate & William by writing novels based on them, but that doesn’t mean they have to keep gushing about Kate the great, does it? I guess to them it does, but it put a bad taste in my mouth and I’m glad to have missed the anti-Sussex racism.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Meghan haters also ruined Royal Order of Sartorial Splendor so she gave up.

  13. Notafan says:

    I noticed the slimmed down monarchy mentioned didn’t include Meghan, only Harry. Was that always the case?

    • Becks1 says:

      It’s interesting, right? I think they are referring back to the original plan of the slimmed down monarchy, which was discussed, I can’t remember, maybe 10 years ago? before Meghan was on the scene but after Kate was, so it was always “Charles, camilla, Will, Kate and Harry.”

    • Lauren says:

      They were hoping that Harry “came to his senses” and divorced his wife by the time that Chuck was king.

      • Jais says:

        It feels like Harry’s wife was implied in the earlier version of the slimmed down monarchy. I can’t imagine they really expected him to remain single forever? Idk maybe they did? Yikes. But I think a wife was implied…

      • Lauren says:

        The piece where they name Harry and not Meghan talks about Louis and Louis was born shortly before H&M got married, Harry was already engaged and a wedding was being planned, so nope. Not an earlier version. This was done on purpose.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      No, the slimmed down plan was always supposed to include Harry and whoever his wife would be. Then Meghan came along, and suddenly the palace is telling Harry they can’t pay for her and she should continue acting. The article is an attempt at rewriting history.

      • Jais says:

        @lauren-I didn’t realize that was written just before they married! So yeah, then you would think Meghan, as Harry’s about to be wife, would be included? They were already excluding her even then. It’s like the clues were all there even before the wedding.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “suddenly the palace is telling Harry they can’t pay for her”

        I cannot wait for 100% of the true story to come out about this matter. This makes no sense as “if the palace is not paying for you” the palace cannot control you.

        The monarch has always maintained control over the royal family via funding and financial allowances.

      • betsyh says:

        The monarchy not being able to pay for Meghan–I found that one of the most curious disclosures in the Oprah interview. If the number of working royals is being cut down, then why can’t they afford her? I am not sure it had to do with their mistrusting her. It seems like there is something about the royal finances that we don’t know about.

      • Sid says:

        Bay, it was probably a story told to Harry in the hopes that he or Meghan would decide not to get married. Just like telling Harry and Meghan that after they got married she should continue working as an actor, when they all know full and well that it would just not be feasible as one of only two DIL’s of the future king in alleged slimmed down monarchy. Those people never wanted this marriage to happen and were trying to put up any and every roadblock.

      • Becks1 says:

        @betsyh – my one complaint about the Oprah interview was that there was TOO much information, especially once Harry came on. A LOT came out in that second segment with him and everyone seems focused on the part about his father cutting him off and the skin color conversation (both of which are big deals, don’t get me wrong.) But I wanted another hour to talk about why they didn’t want Archie to be HRH, why they didnt want to pay for Meghan to be a working royal but wanted her to keep acting (like what in the world, how was that going to work?), more clarification about the security issue (were they always opposed to Meghan having it?) , whether Charles did actually pay for Meghan’s clothes etc like he pays for Kate’s. It was just like one big reveal after another and I want more details about some of those things.

    • ABritGuest says:

      The slimmed down monarchy was always meant to include Harry & his wife. When Sussexit was announced & it was briefed that the Sussexes felt pushed out & had been told they weren’t included in the slimmed down monarchy, royal commentators said this wasn’t true & Harry & his wife were always part of Charles’ vision of the slimmed down working team of royals as per the jubilee balcony scene- Queen, Charles, Camilla, Will, Kate & Harry. Obviously something changed when Meghan came along.

      The Fail had an article last year that Meghan had been given an option to keep acting but insisted on becoming a working royal. I didn’t believe it at the time but ties up with what Harry said on Oprah. The firm didn’t want her to become a working royal as she was meant to be a degree wife remember. That’s why Harry alone as a working royal was probably still on the list.

      I don’t think charities benefit as much as they should from royal visits. The worker bees barely get press coverage & the reports on the more high profile royals like Kate focus on what she’s wearing or her hair. That Giving Evidence report showed there wasn’t an uplift to donations from a royal visit.

      If there are less royals in the working team & reduction in workload I hope thats reflected in reduction in the public funding they receive but somehow doubt that will happen…

      • notasugarhere says:

        Several (of the pathetic handful) of Kate’s ‘patronages’ had to close because of lack of funding. She did less than nothing for them.

  14. Lauren says:

    Maybe it was Philip dying that made them go “oh sht there aren’t that many of us left!”. Because the Queen is 95, the Queen’s working cousins are all over 75 (the youngest being the Duke of Gloucester at 76 and the rest over 80) and once the Queen is gone how can Charles justify using public money to pay for his mother’s cousins? As I’ve said before either Chuck sucks it up and keeps the Wessexes, Anne, and the York sisters on board or he resigns himself to the fact that due to to their short sight the working royals are going to be 4, and two aren’t going to magically start working at 40 years of age.

    • Jais says:

      When Kate said Harry and Meghan threw her kids under the bus in that Tatler article, it seems to be about this. Technically Kate and William will be doing more and prob so will the kids as soon as they are at the appropriate age, which could be any age really? The Spanish princess has already had an event so who knows?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Your statement is exactly what the Tatler article was referring to.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think we’ll see the kids the same way we have been – christmas walk, trooping, and then as George is a teenager maybe he’ll show up at a few more events, but mostly ceremonial ones. I think the bigger issue is that the kids won’t have the decade of nonroyal life that William and Harry had. They’ll be expected to become working royals pretty early on to fill the gaps.

        At least that is my guess, we shall see what happens.

      • JT says:

        Well if they were worried about their kids being plunged into royal duties earlier, than they shouldn’t have smeared H&M in to leaving. They wanted the spotlight to themselves because they couldn’t compete, now they’ve got it, so dealt with it. So what if their kids have to get out there sooner. Suck it up. They did this to their kids.

        The Spanish princesses are already doing solo engagements, so they better start training them properly. Or maybe they know they suck at mentoring and training so the kids will be in trouble. Leonor and Sofia have Felipe and Letizia. The Cambridge kids have the Duke and Duchess on Keeness. We’ll see how that goes, although nobody should be expecting much.

      • Jais says:

        I think you’re right @becks1 that they won’t have that decade to themselves. Also, just thought about the fact that many have commented that the Spanish monarchy is the one that is truly in trouble due to the former king and his financial shenanigans. Not sure if that is part of why the young princess is already doing engagements or not? But it could become that sending the kids out younger and younger is actually a sign of a weakening monarchy.
        @JT-yeah it all comes back to they shouldn’t have smeared the sussexes.

      • Lauren says:

        But that’s it Willnot and Cannot won’t just suddenly start doing more. The Spanish and Swedish royal families started easing their girls into a public role very early on, giving them privacy but letting them participate in small ways in the ceremony. Even the Belgian and Dutch royal families are doing it. The RF babied Willnot too much. This due to the trauma of his mother’s death, but also due to the longevity of the Queen. So right now they have an almost 40-year-old FFK who is nowhere ready for his role and a FFFK which I’m not really sure that they started preparing past how to seat at the table. The Cambridge kids are going to be thrown to the center of the stage fast sooner than the Cambridges realize and while Elisabeth (the heir to the Belgian throne) gave a speech at the age of 9, Leonor (the heir to the Spanish throne) made her first speech at 13 can you imagine George doing the same in 2 or 5 years? And this was always going to happen regardless of Harry and Meghan.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry has set the precedent that neither of the younger kids will be working royals.

  15. LaraW” says:

    Their future: Redneck Royals, soon to be evicted.

    Not convinced this will happen because ArtHistorian has made a lot of good points here in other posts about the sheer inertia of the British Monarchy as an institution and how difficult it is to remove something with that much historical baggage.

    But wishes, Her Majesty’s horses.

  16. Snuffles says:

    “I have no idea what British Brand Royal stands for post Queen. I don’t think they do either. They are essentially a Victorian monarchy trying to operate in the 21st century and have no idea how.”

    BINGO! They are backed into a corner now and are being forced to change. And it is extremely dubious whether they will be able to.

    • Babz says:

      If they are going to have any kind of brand success in the future, it’s imperative that they bring in outside consultants to build it. They are in the bubble. They are held prisoner by generations of out-dated group think. In order to move forward, they need to burst that bubble, let in some fresh air and fresh ideas, or they aren’t going to last. And I give the odds of them being smart enough to do that at zero. We’ve already seen their strategic thinking in terms of Harry and Meghan, so this version of the monarchy is on its last legs.

  17. Becks1 says:

    It’s interesting to me that it’s going to be Charles and William deciding this without any input from the government. You would think if the monarchy was going to be slimmed down, with fewer working royals AND those working royals carrying out fewer duties that the sovereign grant would be reduced to reflect that. Does anyone think that’s going to happen?

    This really just feels like it’s all about William trying to do the bare minimum of work. If he had a stellar work record over the past 10 years (either in the RAF or EAAA or as a royal), then I think there would be more of a benefit of the doubt given to a potential restructuring. but as it is, he’s lazy and doesn’t work and even the RRs know it. so he’s just continuing on being lazy and avoiding work.

    I guess I would avoid work too if I could do it and still get millions a year from my father and be in line to get millions a year from a duchy and then all the personal wealth of the monarch.

    • Alexandria says:

      BoJo is more than happy that the BRF fiasco is pulling focus from Brexit. He is more focused on getting his opinion out on the football super league and butting in on an American murder trial (even though he did nothing for BLM).

    • betsyh says:

      The Sovereign Grant pays for only a small portion of the royal’s finances. Tax breaks (such as the wealth of the monarch not being subject to death tax) pay for the rest:

      Because the finances of the monarchy are cloaked in secrecy, this article’s author could only find information through a 1989 review of the Civil List, the forerunner of the Sovereign Grant, which states “The State provides for the monarchy in two ways: first through explicit finance (currently votes and the Civil List) and secondly by foregoing tax on the Sovereign’s private wealth.” The tax breaks are a way of keeping the true cost of the monarchy under wraps.

      In 1989, the cost of the monarchy was ten times that of the Civil List total. Today it is most likely still many times more than the Sovereign Grant.

      Do you suppose that Charles is slimming down the monarchy because he believes those tax loopholes will be closed in the future?

      • JanetDR says:

        I hope that is true (that the loopholes will be closed). Wouldn’t they all be a lot happier just doing what they want to? As far as their God given right to rule, well, that’s not been happening for a very long time, so let’s stop pretending that they actually do anything.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Per Wikipedia: The last two decades of the Civil List were marked by surpluses and deficits. Surpluses in the 1991–2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient led to the accrual of a £35.3 million reserve by late 2000. Consequently, the Civil List was fixed at £7.9 million annually in 2001, the same amount as in 1991, and remained at that level until its abolition. The reserve was then used to make up the shortfall in the Civil List during the subsequent decade.

        The Civil List was abolished under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which is what is in place today.

        BayTampaBay Footnote: The Sovereign Grant Act allowed the Monarch more discretion in how the money was spent which allowed $2.5 million to be spent on Anmer Hall renovations and addition $$$ to spent on re-renovations to Kensington Palace Apartment 1A (this is in addition to any funds from The Crown Estates) instead of on normal preventative maintenance for Buckingham Palace.

      • Sid says:

        Besides the tax breaks, the government-funded security is a huge boon for the BRF. I recall the last time there was a big kerfluffle over the BRF’s costs years ago, and certain family members had their security cut, their annual security costs were estimated at $100 million per year.

  18. S808 says:

    If B&E don’t become working royals (which I highly doubt) then they won’t have a choice but to have less patronages. C&C and Anne are getting up there in age, W&K don’t do enough as is, the queens cousins are also getting up there in age and the Cambridge kids won’t be of age for a while.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yeah they’re going to have to take on fewer patronages (although how often do we think Philip was visiting all those patronages? Once every few years?) and fewer bread and butter events in general, just because there are going to be less people to do the work. but then it comes down to what william and kate are actually doing. Are they going to step it up to fill the void, so there are fewer royals but the royals are a lot more visible and get more coverage than Anne or Edward? Or are they just going to keep hiding out in Norfolk for another decade?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “although how often do we think Philip was visiting all those patronages”

        I think Philip was doing more than the public was aware because not all “visits” were media events like they are will Baldy & Wiglet.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think that Philip was very busy before he retired, but he had hundreds of patronages, there’s no way he was visiting them all on a regular basis. The same way the Queen doesn’t visit half her patronages on a regular basis. That’s not a knock against Philip, it’s just being realistic.

    • molly says:

      I am fascinated with the B&E piece. They’re really RIGHT THERE for royal duty with pretty clothes and minimal drama. I know Charles hates Andrew and wants a “slimmed down” monarch, but it’s about to be far too slim. (Also, let Lady Louise go to college and be a young adult!) They’ve managed to distance themselves just enough from their parents to be palatable, I think. We’ll see if they get the call.

      • Becks1 says:

        B&E would be tricky bc their husbands wouldn’t be part of the firm, presumably. Neither one signed up for that and while I think Edo seems to enjoy the pomp and circumstance, he has a career that seems to be going well, I don’t seem him giving that up. So then you have one spouse who is a working royal and one who isn’t, so the family is receiving public money while earning money, so it starts to seem awfully like “half in/half out” which was shut down so strongly by the royal family a year ago.

        Anne’s husbands were never working royals, I don’t think husbands of the York girls would be either, but for Anne it wasn’t an issue because her husbands were both military.

      • molly says:

        @Becks1 Hmm, that’s true. Although Euj has been living on royal properties for years, so there’s been public money spent on them in a round about way. Maybe they’ll test the waters this year by having them accompany the queen at a few things, since she’s reported to have a buddy at future events. I think it’s worth exploring if the alternative is leaving hundreds of patronages high and dry.

      • Jais says:

        It’s funny because as you say @becks1 that would create the half in half out situation, which was rejected. The fact that it was suggested that Meghan stay acting before the marriage would certainly suggest to Meghan and Harry that asking for the half in situation was not offside bc it was the institutions idea in the first place! Agree with @Molly that it seems weird to not have E and B sharing in duties but it is really complicated.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Although Euj has been living on royal properties for years, so there’s been public money spent on them in a round about way.”

        I think Andrew (or cough! QEII cough!) were privately reimbursing the Crown Estates for the York Princesses rents at St. James Palace-Kensington Palace from their private pocket.

      • Sunshine says:

        I don’t think the York ladies want back into the tabloid spotlight. They have a good balance now, why would they want to go back to being Wont and Kant’s shields?

      • molly says:

        @Sunshine- I agree that there’s not nearly as much incentive for B&E to dive into the vipor’s nest now that they’re married and settled. Eugenie especially seems to have the happy, mom life she’s always wanted. I’m reserving judgement on Beatrice’s marriage until we see it last beyond a few years. Andrew and Fergie were such a mess, and most royal kids can’t break the cycle of drama.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @molly – I will give you that Andrew and Fergie are a big mess; however, they are very devoted to each other and raised what seems to be to two well adjusted and happy Royal daughters. This is more than can be said for the Wales or Cambridges at the present time.

    • notasugarhere says:

      As I wrote upthread, the BRF does 3200 engagements a year. Charles and Anne do 500 each of those. 5-6 people could easily continue to do 3200 engagements total without breaking a sweat. They have to organized, schedule from one office, and assign things logically. No more sending three royals to the same town the same day.

      As for ‘patronages’? They differ. They aren’t all massive things. Sometimes a royal is ‘patron of the build a new roof for X church’ campaign which simply means they show up to cut the ribbon, etc.

  19. Woke says:

    One question that I have. When Charles becomes king and PW becomes Prince of Wales and moves to Clarence house. What happened to KP ? If PH was still there KP would have been his ?

    • Becks1 says:

      I think William and Kate will stay at KP, that’s why they use KensingtonRoyal for their social medial handles, it works when they become Duke and duchess of cornwall too. Clarence House has nothing to do with being Prince of Wales, Charles has said he will still live there as king (we’ll see how that plays out), but Charles didn’t even move there until after the Queen Mother died in 2002.

      “Kensington Palace” has multiple residences and office space, reception space, etc, so even if the Cambridges move out, the buildings will still be used. It will be interesting to see how it’s used as the older royals die off.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I personally think Charles will stay at Highgrove due to proximity to Camilla’s private home, Kate will stay at Anmer and Baldy will reside at Sandringham as he really enjoys Rose gardening opportunities even though Sandringham will become the personal property of Charles III when QEII dies.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charles cannot stay at Highgrove unless William lets him. The second Charles is king, William is Duke of Cornwall and has defacto control of Duchy properties.

        Charles has said he wants to rule from Windsor and never live in BP.

      • notasugarhere says:

        To add, William could move to Wood Farm at Sandringham if he isn’t already there. Now that Philip is gone, WF is available. As it is on the private estate, only staff would know William wasn’t living at Anmer.

    • Elizabeth K. Mahon says:

      Kensington Palace is made up of several apartments and cottages. The Duke of Windsor famously referred to it as the “Aunt Heap” because so many aunts and cousins were living there in grace & favour apartments before the government made them pay rent to live there. At one point, Princess Margaret, the Duke & Duchess of Gloucester, the Princess & Princess of Wales, and Prince and Princess Michael all lived there. At the moment, the Cambridges, and the Michaels occupy apartments there. The Duke & Duchess of Gloucester moved out, and there was talk that Harry & Meghan were going to take their apartment but instead they moved to Frogmore Cottage.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The D&D of Gloucester still live at the Kensington Palace Complex.

        Per Town & Country (2019):

        Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who is Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin, will be moving his family from Apartment 1, which is reportedly quite large and has 21 rooms, to the Old Stables, a smaller residence which is also located within the Kensington Palace grounds. The Gloucesters have no unmarried children and therefore no children currently residing with them. This household relocation is viewed as a pre-retirement downsizing.

    • Charles has stated many times that he wants to stay at Clarence House and use Buckingham Palace only officially. By doing this he can also open BP more often to public and I guess that is quite a moneymaker for the Firm. He has been pretty clear that he does not want to live at BP. THE Queen and Prince Phillip didn’t want to live their either, but the Queen Mum and government and Royal courtiers insisted that they must continue in her father’s et al footsteps. I think Charles will get his way quite frankly.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They have proposed an almost 90 million restoration *of one exterior side* of Clarence House. With the 400 million being put towards Buckingham Palace, I’m not sure anyone wants to put 90X4 million (four exterior walls) in to Clarence House just so Charles can stay there.

      • Wadsworth the Butler says:

        That was before BP underwent massive renovations with public funds. I don’t see how Charles can refuse to live there now.

  20. Smg says:

    I do think it’s funny that the whole plan was that H&M do a bunch of work when told, but then step aside as soon as the Cambridge kids want a piece of the action.

    Something tells me Charlotte and Louis may bail.

    • Alexandria says:

      Those kids are raised by the nanny, KKKate Guevara, Carole Kardashian and Incandescent TOB. On the other side you have deadbeat Chuck. Will not be surprised if Harry becomes the Tyler Perry to Charlotte or Louis.

      • lanne says:

        Those kids are going to grow up hearing about “The Betrayal of Harry.” Which of course, would be a fascinating story of intrigue to a rebellious teen. I wonder what the Cambridge kids are going to think when they are old enough to read about their Uncle Harry and Aunt Meghan. Oh lord, there could be some SERIOUS drama on the horizon, espeically for Charlotte and Louis.

      • Sid says:

        lanne, how about when they hear/ read that their teenage cousins in America are living a life with a lot more choices and the freedom to chart their own life and career paths? This is a rather unique situation the BRF finds itself in. The sort of insularity that helped them before just doesn’t exist anymore, and they’re not going to be able to hide everything from Charlotte and Louis like they might have been able to in the past. Yeah, you can raise them to believe the monarchy comes before all and that they owe undying allegiance to their older brother, and maybe the perks of being the (speculated) king’s royal kids will be enough to assuage any misgivings. But maybe not.

  21. Agreatreckoning says:

    Hmmm. Interesting wording in this story. Is William trying to throw Charles under the bus while C is off contemplating? Talking about Charles’ slimmed down monarchy plan-H & M have been married for almost 3 years now and the story states ‘the Cambridges and Prince Harry’ and then the ‘Duke of Sussex’. It should have been the Cambridges and Sussexes and the Duke & Duchess of Sussex. Salty White Isle media and royal family are showing themselves once again. They mention the work Harry & Meghan did but she was left out of the slimmed down monarchy plan? Thank the lord H & M left.

  22. carryrose says:

    Lol when queen dies it’s going to be shitshow. Charles and William does not like sophie or edward. Charles particular hate his siblings other than anne. I dont think this what charles vision. Charles repeatedly said slimming down monarchy which doesnt include sophie. Charles and William is not liked by queen cousin that’s why both chuck and bill didnt come to any of their weddings.

    Harry and eugiene seems to know all of queen cousin and even harry went to that cousin wedding the one after eugiene.

    The rest of the royal will leave on their own after queen die. There already rift between the cousins tindall on team bill and yorks on harry. Zara is only nicer to William because she knows he will get duchy. If he is not of their use i believe zara will jump ship.

    One thing william wont get it that you have to be seen for the taxpayer money worth. They cant forever hide behind their children and less engagement means less money.
    After queen die the cambriges will be under massive scrutiny and public will go over everythn they do.

    • Bess says:

      Why do Charles and William have a problem with Edward and Sophie? Isn’t Sophie supposed to have a very close relationship with the current Queen? What’s the issue

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I think Charles III was jealous that Philip & Edward really “got on” well. I have never read anything of Chucky having a problem with Sophie.

      • Coco says:

        I can see any resentment the eldest child feels for the baby of the family turned up to eleven with Charles and Edward. And both Charles and William want their wives to be seen in the best light possible as favored by the Queen, even if, in my opinion, only Charles truly cares about whether or not his wife is happy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        W&K don’t have a problem with Edward and Sophie, since Sophie has spent the past 10 years kissing up to them.

        Charles wanted to eliminate all of his siblings as working royals, letting the elders (Kents, Gloucesters, Princess Alexandra) retire or die-on-the-dole. Easier to get rid of Andrew if you also get rid of Edward and Sophie. Charles even fired the Queen’s former private secretary over his attempts to give E&S a bigger role.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @nota – I have read many places that Charles III would keep Anne around as a full time working Royal because, she is a work horse, they “get on” very well with no problems and she does the engagements no one else wants to do,.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think Anne would keep working, no matter if Charles tried to eliminate her. But it would be tricky to eliminate Andrew and Edward without also cutting Anne.

  23. LeonsMomma says:

    What does having a patronage bring to an organization? Does it really help with donations? Worthwhile publicity?

    I am not a fan of William, but to have so many patronages per person dilutes what said person can do for it. I actually think doing fewer patronages and having a foundation to hand out grants to more is a better idea.

    Though, not like William would do it, and is using it as an excuse to do less.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Having a Royal patron ensures free United Kingdom wide coverage in the tabloids and broadsheets and tons of free PR to the charity.

      • equality says:

        But look how much publicity H&M’s charities get from posting on Twitter or Instagram. And then the broadsheets pick it up anyway because it concerns H&M. And nobody even realized how many and what patronages Phil had so how is that getting them attention?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Everything was picked by the Tabs and Broads due to the former working Royal Dynamic Duo of Harry & Meghan. What Royal charity did not want Diana? What Royal Charity does not want Meghan & Harry?

      • notasugarhere says:

        What tabloids and broadsheets cover Anne or any of her work? Or that of Kents, Gloucesters, Princess Alexandra? The answer is, none.

    • Lauren says:

      Richard Palmer who is a royal roach correspondent said that a charity being backed by a royal gave it a “seal of approval” that confirmes that it is legitimate (like there isn’t a commission in the UK that does just that). I’m guessing that being backed by a royal people would take more interest in your work and want to pour money into it to be associated with the royal family. That works when your royal patron takes an active interest in your business and wants to help you strategized a plan to make revenue to support your work, but that was just H&M. Patronages backed by Keen haven’t seen her for years and a couple have gone out of business. The link to the RR tweet

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If I bought a $10,000 table at an EACH charity event it would be to meet Rose Hanbury and David Rocksavage not Baldy & Wiglet.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay I’ll go with you! Celebitchy field trip!!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – Of course you, Nota and ABritGuest are going. Why do you think I bought a table??? The table is for six so we have room for two more.

      • Lauren says:

        Can I come too?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Lauren – You are #5. Gowns and your best grocery store tiara or better is required.

        No Burger King Crowns, please!

      • lanne says:

        I’ll take a spot!! I actually make jewelry so I can make us all Swarovski Crystal tiaras!

      • Becks1 says:

        Thanks for the offer @Lanne, but I know what I’m bringing for Bay and me – Tinfoil Tiaras to go with all our theories, lol.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The BayTampaBay VIP Platinum Patron Sponsorship Table at the next EACH Gala at Houghton Hall, Norfolk is now full.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        If any guest with a reservation cannot make it because their tiara is at the bank or they are dining with the King & Queen of the Netherlands, their chair goes to Digital Unicorn.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Does Digital Unicorn get to wear the Swedish Steel Cut tiara to the event, after I liberate it from the Swedish vaults? That’s my pick. Sparkly but lightweight. Or maybe ArtHistorian could liberate CP Mary’s Midnight tiara, since we both love that one so much.

    • Becks1 says:

      It does not help with donations, there was a study down last year or the year before that could find no tangible benefit to having a royal patron, especially considering how many months or sometimes years passed between visits. Royals like Anne or Edward never get that much coverage anyway so it’s not like the average Brit is going to pick up the paper and say “oh Anne went here yesterday let me donate.”

      having fewer patronages and doing more with them would presumably be more beneficial to the charity/organization, but then we’re back to the same old problem of “the cambridges don’t work” so it’s not like they’re going to actually do anything with those patronages.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Many of the patronages are tiny things that only need/want one visit a year. Things like Sophie attending the annual sheep judging at a county fair, etc.

  24. Merricat says:

    This must be why the Middletons are freaking out. Does Kate actually benefit the monarchy? Will William try to drop her like a ton of budget bricks? Will Kate be given one more chance to actually work for someone other than herself? On All My Monarchists.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      It is not just Wiglet. Baldy does not want to really work either.

      Baldy wants the life he “thinks” his Turnip Toff friends have.

      To see how hard these people and their families work check-out the four episode documentary series “The Aristocrats” on BritBox. Each episode features a different titled aristocrat and what they (and in some cases their family) have have to do to make the family estate/ family corporation/ family trust run successfully.

  25. Phoenix says:

    But William and Kate are already doing so little and clearly not enough for their patronages. My point is they are already doing less and it’s still not sufficient enough.
    So this whole idea of fewer patronages is not going to work because they are lazy a-holes that don’t want to lift their fingers and that has nothing to do with the amount of work they are doing.

  26. Agreatreckoning says:

    Harry & Meghan have been gone for over a year now. This story could have been completely written without mentioning Harry or Meghan at all. As usual, it’s showing the media can’t quit them and the clicks/comments they get by inserting H & M into any story.

    • equality says:

      It gets the clicks and it gets up the haters hopes that Charles will decide to take Harry’s titles away. They don’t seem to get that the titles aren’t tied to being “working” royals.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        All Future Charles III can take away from Harry is the “style” of HRH.

        Harry was born a Prince of the UK and that stays via the George V 1917 Letters Patent.

        The Dukedom can only be taken way by an act of Parliament with a Bill of Attainder. This will not happen as Boris Johnson will not touch a mess such as this with Jeremy Corbyn’s or Keir Starmer’s ten-foot pole let alone his own ten-foot pole.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Maybe it needs to be explained to haters with smaller words or talking real slow to understand how it works?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Agreatreckoning – LOVE YOUR COMMENT!

  27. TeamMeg says:

    Could it be possible lazy William feels “trapped”?


  28. IRMAVEP says:

    Hush! Can you hear that creaking? That’s the Monarchy about to crack, crumble and fall. The Monarchy is about two things – one it’s role in government rituals – this is the Queen’s role; and two – it’s contribution to the country in spreading and dispensing largesse – taking on the patronage of worthy charities, raising awareness of worthy causes, raising money for worthy institutions such as hospitals. Also visiting the sick in hospitals and the aged in care homes – that sort of thing. Diana was the shining star of the second part of Monarchy -spreading largesse wherever she went – her appearance as a patron of a charity bought in millions of pounds and her appearance at a hospital changed the lives of the sick and frail – they said so, many many times. Harry and Meghan were already making their impressive mark in these areas also, until their stellar success threatened the lack-lustre image of the Wales’s and the Cambridges’. What an utter waste of genuine ability and true worthiness when they exiled Harry and Meghan. The foundations of the Monarchy have been eroded since Diana died, Meghan and Harry may have shored them up, but no! Not allowed ! The creaking will get louder and the cracks will become more visible. It’s about to fall…. stand clear please, stand clear!

  29. Harla says:

    I’m so thrilled that the Sussex’s left when they did, having William in charge of anything would not have gone well for them. I can only imagine their big sigh of relief knowing that they will not be dependent on William for anything now and in the future.

    • Lady D says:

      I bet giving thanks is the first thing they do when they open their eyes in the morning. So glad they left the U.K.

  30. Dr007 says:

    1. Of course Meghan is left out when Prince Harry is mentioned in the article…they could have simply said “the Sussexes.” Even more evidence that they’re still hellbent on marginalizing her whenever there is an opportunity.
    2. Look at Prince Andrew, slyly making that comeback! He’ll use this opportunity to return to the fold, under the guise that the Crown needs the people-power to keep up with the work. Tsk tsk.

    • Lizzie says:

      I’m not sure about Andrew, Charles never liked him and now they really are afraid of the public demanding Andrew be interviewed by the fbi.

  31. Lizzie says:

    I think they need to address Uniform-gate before the queen dies. They were so high on hurting Harry by stripping him of his honorary titles and declaring he cannot wear the uniforms that they didn’t see how that would play out. The queens funeral will be a state funeral and they will wear uniforms.
    As far as a slimmed down monarchy goes that would have always meant fewer engagements. They just thought Harry would pick up the slack for the other brother.

  32. Amy Bee says:

    The Royal Family was extremely short-sighted and stupid when they rejected Harry and Meghan’s offer to be half in and half out. They’ve lost all control of Harry and Meghan and they’ve left themselves short handed.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Exactly. Even taking patronages back knowing you don’t have enough bodies to reassign them too & some had expressly said they wanted to keep them on as patrons was just poor management.

      I had a look before Philip died & he had so many military associations & patronages he was still the only royal attached to. retired Duchess of Kent had a number of military associations too so whilst it’s probably for the Sussexes to have less links to their former roles , the idea of the patronage’s & military associations needing to be removed because they weren’t working royals anymore doesn’t cut it.

      And then the idea the Sussexes had to be in the same country to serve these orgs like everyone hasn’t been relying on Zoom, like the queen isn’t head of state still for countries she’s not visited in years & like other royals don’t have overseas charity& military associations. The moves towards the Sussexes was punitive but they had a complicit press to gloss over the double standards.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      Agree. They had 2 people who didn’t seem to mind working hard and now they have to scramble and act like they were left high and dry. The RF is blinded by their own stupidity.

  33. Nat says:

    William as king will be like Trump as president of USA…on second thought even Trump had a hobby -> golf 🙂
    Fortunately, USA was able to get rid of Trump after 4 years…UK would have to poison William to say bye bye to him 🙂

  34. Over it says:

    Wish the uk would have a meeting to end this welfare family and let them make their own way in life.

  35. Keroppi says:

    Just had a thought! Maybe Will and Kate have been confused this whole time! They thought people were saying mediocrity when they saying monarchy. “Yes, we fully support the mediocrity.”

  36. equality says:

    So hundreds of events and patronages that Phil previously covered plus H&M’s and, with the Queen supposedly doing less, things she previously covered. Then sooner rather than later those covered by the Queen’s cousins. And Charles wants to cut out his siblings who do more work than W&K? There’s no way. The patronages are going to be dropped except for the most visible ones or they are going to get so little attention that it isn’t worth the charity’s time and they would be better off with celebrity patrons.

  37. IRMAVEP says:

    What is disgusting about the piece from the Daily Froth is the utter ghosting of Meghan in this scenario they have presented. It’s as though Harry exists in a vacuum, with no wife. She is utterly and completely absent from the future plans for the RF here. Who writes these imaginings? Are they revenge fantasies coming from the residents of the assorted palaces and their viper courtiers? Or is it the turgid dreams of the DM hacks? Either way, it’s evident that there can be no relevant future for the RF if this is what their plans and wishes comprise, Imagine sitting in on the meeting between Wills and Charles. They – neither of them – have any leadership abilities or qualities. They will fight and throw tantrums and I suspect will be unable to organise this envisaged ‘golden future’ or any viable future for the RF. Picture the disappointment when Edward or Sophie turn up at some future function. Imagine the disappointment and anger when Kate or William fail to turn up at all [‘no babysitter available’]. Anne is aging, as are Charles and Camilla so their abilities to take on larger workloads will be limited. Andrew is persona non grata – I suspect he’d be resented by members of the public. That leaves the YorkPrincesses who are much lower down the food chain and not working royals, There’s a decade, more likely two before the three Cambridge kids are old enough to take on the work of senior royals, and they may inherit their parents’ work-shy ways, Oh, dear!

    • lanne says:

      They’re practically pulling a Japan–aging themselves out of existence. Unless the Japanese government changes the law and undoes male-only succession, the longest continuous monarchy in the world is likely to die out in a generation or 2. Right now, there’s one heir who’s 13 years old. One.heir. The pressure on him to marry, and for whoever he marries to have sons, is going to be unendurable. It nearly destroyed Empress Masako.

      At least in the UK there are plenty of successors, but the Queen’s longevity has assured that the British monarchy will remain a Gerontology for the foreseeable future. While I certainly respect my elders, a monarchy that’s exclusively the domain of Old Folks doesn’t exactly sizzle, or generate global interest. The world paid notice to the Queen because she was so young. Diana too. Now, everyone keeps pretending that Kate is some 20 year old ingenue, but the truth is, by the time the British media decides to stop babying her, she’ll be likely ready to re-enter diapers herself.

  38. iconoclast59 says:

    The only way to pull this off is to exponentially increase staff at BP, KP, and CH. I can see an army of clerical workers toiling away in anonymity, writing letters (w/ Charles’ or William’s crest and signature, of course), making phone calls, etc. Charles, the Keens, or one of the lesser working royals makes a brief visit or Zoom chat every once in while and gets to claim all of the credit.

    At minimum, KP’s going to have to replace the slackers currently on the payroll (who felt “bullied” by 5 am emails from Meghan) with people who will actually put in a full day’s work.

    Does the government provide funding for staff? How does that work?

    • Becks1 says:

      I think the funding for staff comes out of the sovereign grant. I think last year or the year before it was around 80 million, and thats supposed to pay for upkeep to the official residences, staff, I think the working royals actually get salaries, etc. Then the Queen on top of that has a large personal fortune and she gets money from the Duchy of Lancaster, and I’m not entirely positive how that intermingles with the sovereign grant.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        ” I think the working royals actually get salaries,”

        It is an allowance for expenses much like many, if not all, CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies receive. QEII decides how much expense $$$ each royal or family member receives. Future Charles III receives nothing as he 100% funded from the Duchy of Cornwall.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It wouldn’t require that. It would require the remaining royals to work more and for all the work to be better scheduled.

      Charles and Anne already do 1000 engagements a year combined, 500 each. All you need is 5-6 people doing that many engagements. Organize things so a royal is sent to one town to do 4-5 engagements in that town in one day.

      Remember the quote from Charles’s former staffer, Mark Bolland.

      ‘The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of the year and making it look as though they work hard.’

      • FicklePickle says:

        I think the resistance to that is coming from the fact that they’d have to jiggle around patronages en masse in order to consolidate the physical locations of their appearances.

        A re-org from the top down is desperately needed, of course, but these people seen to react to any sort of change by flopping down on the ground and flailing like a toddler who needs a nap. Doing away with the separate courts and installing a central press and scheduling office? Cue foot-stamping and gnashing of the impressive Windsor teeth to rival a stable in a thunderstorm.

  39. Bess says:

    Doesn’t this feel like Charles and Bill Middleton are pushing the Queen out to pasture? After the mourning period ends, it seems like it would be better for the Queen’s mental and physical health to keep busy with her normal schedule.

    • Lizzie says:

      Yes and no. It does feel that way and I hope she puts them in their place. But I really think she should have made Charles regent years ago and certainly when she turned 90.

      • lanne says:

        she should have abdicated after her diamond jubilee. Or the day after she broke Queen Victoria’s longevity record.

    • liz says:

      She’s 95 years old and just widowed. There is no way that her “work schedule” from even 5 years ago would be sustainable for her today. That will kill her faster than anything else.

      She should have abdicated 20 years ago. Charles would have been in his 50s and William in his 20s. Both should have been ready for the roles of King and heir by that point. But they weren’t. Charles had only been divorced from Diana for about 5 years and was just starting to rehabilitate his image after her death in 1997. He was more concerned with getting the public to accept Camilla than with taking over the throne. William was William and simply too immature to take over the responsibilities of running the Duchy of Cornwall (he still is too immature).

      Elizabeth was never, ever going to abdicate. Not after her mother blamed her father’s illness and early death on Edward’s abdication in 1936. Even if Charles and William had been willing and able to take on the responsibilities, it wasn’t going to happen.

      • Bess says:

        I didn’t say that the Queen should keep up a rigorous work schedule like she was doing in her 80s. In many ways she’s like other people who lose their spouses. She’s got to have reason to get out of bed in the morning and something to focus on other than the fact that she lost her husband.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Bess – I understand what you are saying. My grandmother did exactly the same for the same reason.

  40. aquarius64 says:

    The York princesses may not be brought on board because of Andrew’s mess.

    Also how are they going to handle official visits to the US with the Sussexes in CA?

    • equality says:

      If I were B&E I wouldn’t want it anyway. They and their husbands have jobs and don’t have to put up with the other royals being jealous or being compared in the media to Kate. Why do we need royal visits to the US? The royals can’t decide any political policy, why do they need to meet with those who do in other countries? It’s not like we are part of the commonwealth.

      • Jumpingthesnark says:

        Yea, Jack Brooksbank and The Mozz likely enjoy the benefits of being Royal adjacent, but I’ve never gotten the vibe from either of them that they wanted to give up their careers to cut ribbons.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The Sussexes are considered private citizens on USA soil as the ARE NOT working for QEII or the UK government.

      This is no different than when Eugenie lived in NYC and worked for Paddle8.

      • aquarius64 says:

        Given the current situation being on an official visit to the US and not seeing the Sussexes equals bad optics

  41. Lizzie says:

    Are Sophie, Edward, Waity and the other brother the only working royals under 70? And approximately 20 years until the Cambridge children start pitching in and maybe Louise in 10 years? Unless they bring in the York sisters and Zara and Peter they won’t make it. Unless they redefine what their actual roles are.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes, those are the only working royals under 70. Prince Edward is late 50s, so he’s still going to be active for another few decades (if he’s allowed to be.)

      Wonder if this whole situation will pressure Lady Louise to become a working royal in a few years?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have no problem with Lady Louise but I must ask: If Charles does not want the York Princesses, why would he want Lady Louise?

        Also, I think Zara has ZERO interest in Royal Work as she and Mike are heavily involved with Corporate Sponsorships and Commercial Podcasts which are lucrative.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I doubt Louise would be made a working royal. They’ve kept her out of the public eye quite fiercely most of her life.

  42. Robin says:

    Sorry to be crass, but they might as well have thrown a funeral for the whole idea of the British monarchy. They looked as if they were walking themselves into the graveyard of insignificance.

  43. Lizzie says:

    As has been pointed out many times the rf really messed up when they turned Harry and Meghan’s half in option flat. Now they need the Sussex’s. Even if, and it’s a big if, everything were settled between the rf and Harry and Meghan, they will never give up the freedom of driving their own lives. Plus they have made commitments they cannot walk away from. They might agree to make certain appearances but would never take over a large number of bread and butter appearances – and now that the dm has turned so much of the public against them it probably wouldn’t even be safe.

  44. Chelsea says:

    The craziest line in this was the one about how the need for a plan intensified after the one year review period for the Sussexes passed. Philip retired in 2017 and Amdrew stepped back in 2019; it’s insane to me that they didnt take this into consideration during the run up to Sussexit or in the year that followed. It’s hilarious that they really thought they could dangle Harry’s honorary military titles in front of him and he’d bite and beg to come back. They were so sure that they pushed multiple stories about how H&M wanted an extension of the one year review only to have to admit a couple months later that Harry never called to ask for it like they thought he would. How embarrassing.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “The craziest line in this was the one about how the need for a plan intensified after the one year review period for the Sussexes passed.”

      That is indeed a crazy line. Makes one wonder about the competency of those running the British Royal Road Show and those writing about the British Royal Road Show.

    • Lemons says:

      Those royal military honors and access to the $$ is all some of them have. Just look at Edward highly decorated but never served! I’m not surprised that they thought this would work on Harry and Meghan because the people running the show lack perspective. Literally cannot experience the world as most of us do.

      Funnily enough, when stripped of uniform, it looks like Harry is a more decorated soldier than William even is as a member of the royal family.

  45. Christine says:

    I know I am being horrible, but I honestly find this hilarious. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Slimmed down monarchy? CHECK! Too bad you chased the charismatic workhorses out of the country.

    Zara, Peter, et. al. should not answer any phone calls, or texts, for the foreseeable future.

    • Gabby says:

      You are not being horrible. It’s good fun when an adversary’s evil plan blows up in their face. I agree that Zara, Peter, and especially Sophie and Edward’s kids should not answer the phone. The crown has no right to commandeer people’s lives.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Gabby, but do they all live on crown property? Who is giving them money? I think that the crown has the ability to commandeer any one of the family’s lives or they will cut funding???? Let’s remember these are ruthless people who will do whatever they want in order to make themselves look good and continue the monarchy.

        Well, if Eugenia and family are living at Frogmore Cottage, they are probably more protected from this than the others.

  46. Saucy&Sassy says:

    What does Peter Phillips do? Could he do some of this stuff? You know I find it interesting that they have no problem letting the world know that Harry is the royal that was carrying the entire family. They may want to rethink that PR.

  47. cisne says:

    Sheesh! Talk about “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. How very BRF! Short-sightedness does not even begin to describe this! They were more preoccupied with not being overshadow by a mixed raced almost white woman and the fact that their nephew and grandson may have a bit of *tanable* or neglible melanated skin? They deserve to crash and burn. They deserve to be cancelled. They deserve to be abolished.