King Charles’s big military patronage announcement did not go over well

The big news today over in Britain is that Buckingham Palace announced twenty-one new “honorary appointments” for working royals. All of the appointments are to military positions, because there are so many military units left patronless these days. It’s been a problem for years now, but the issue has been exacerbated by the Duke of York’s perversions, the Sussexit, QEII’s death and the chronic laziness of the heir and his wife. Suddenly, the Windsors find themselves without enough working royals to fill all of the military and charity patronages. Which might explain the Telegraph’s rather pointed coverage of the military patronage announcement:

Today’s announcement from Buckingham Palace of 21 new honorary appointments in the Armed Services for “working members” of the Royal family, chiefly concern those regiments, corps and units formerly headed by Elizabeth II. That said, some roles have been passed to other members of the Royal family by their present holder, the King, presumably to maintain tri-service balance.

Clearly, part of the much larger current review and redistribution of the late Queen’s patronages, which numbered at her death in excess of 600 organisations, these armed services patronages, for that is in effect what they are, have been much easier to deal with than those in the charity and other sectors, such as the patronage of Sunningdale Ladies Golf Club and the Royal Caledonian Curling Club.

However, the task cannot have been entirely easy – particularly when trying to make personal royal links to the units – by the absence from the working royal roster of the Sussexes, the Duke of York and his daughters. Add to that the increasing age and infirmity of the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra, who are both notably absent from the list. Indeed, it can’t be long before the Kents’ military roles come up for review and replacement, most notably the Duke’s Colonelcy of the Scots Guards, for which post the Duke of Edinburgh is the most likely candidate.

Some of the new appointments are obvious, others less so. The new Queen, who is not – unlike her late mother-in-law – particularly noted for her religiosity, surprisingly takes on only one new job to add to her existing three colonelcies. She has been made Patron of the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department. This is hardly an onerous task, since chaplains are distributed among the whole of the Army. Unless, of course, she is planning to meet all of them individually.

The Princess Royal’s only new job, Deputy Colonel-in-Chief of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, must have been an easy call given her strong links to Scotland and her existing appointments with the regiment’s 1st and 6th Battalions. The same is true of the helicopter pilot, the Prince of Wales, who assumes the role of Colonel-in-Chief of the Army Air Corps, and the Duchess of Gloucester’s appointment as Colonel-in-Chief of the Adjutant General’s Corps, of which she has been Deputy Colonel-in-Chief since 1992.

Less obvious are some of the other jobs. Indeed, the attempt in the Buckingham Palace announcement to make personal links are at times somewhat strained, if not entirely absent. The Prince of Wales is not particularly associated with Mercia but is now Colonel-in-Chief of its eponymous regiment.

… And while on the subject of the newly-created Duke of Edinburgh’s colonelcies, surely the Palace knows that he is Colonel, not Colonel-in-Chief, of the London Guards as stated in the announcement. Still on the subject of accuracy, guardees the length and breadth of the land must be harrumphing over their kippers at seeing the King described as “Colonel-in-Chief of the Household Division”, when no such appointment exists. He is, of course, ex officio Colonel-in-Chief of all the regiments of the Household Division, but that’s not the same thing. Standards are clearly slipping at the big house.

[From The Telegraph]

I guess I’ve developed an ear for the nuances of British bitchery, because I snort-laughed a few times: “The new Queen, who is not – unlike her late mother-in-law – particularly noted for her religiosity” and “He is, of course, ex officio Colonel-in-Chief of all the regiments of the Household Division, but that’s not the same thing. Standards are clearly slipping at the big house.” LMAO. They also seem to be hitting King Charles and Buckingham Palace for not working faster to redistribute all of QEII’s 600-plus patronages, and I agree – it’s been a year, surely they should be further into the process. But the problem is as the Telegraph notes – too few working royals. Please, this is so funny.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.

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

70 Responses to “King Charles’s big military patronage announcement did not go over well”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rapunzel says:

    They gave Will Harry’s old honorary unit. So ridiculous.

    • Amy Bee says:

      That’s not Harry’s old honorary unit but the unit he was actually transferred to after he decided to become an Apache pilot. We all know how jealous William was of Harry. I’m going to bet he specifically asked Charles for that honorary post.

    • swaz says:

      The Daily Fail is the worst, they made it sound like William is receiving all Harry’s HAND ME DOWNS🤣🤣🤣 and Kate received Andrew’s 🤣🤣🤣

    • HennyO says:

      Why the Windsors, in this day and age, still feel the need to be so tied to the military, by giving themselves tons of honorary titles/patronages, while none of them have any recent
      military accomplishments, is beyond me. What is an embarrassment to real service people.

      I guess that there are thousands of retired high ranking military people with tons of time, a hart and a better understanding of the military, who can do a better job as a patron, than these lazy performative royals.

      I really had hoped that Charles commander of the army, would get rid of some of this shameful tin solder performative positions and titles. In a
      constitution democracy, one or two royals (monarch and heir) tied to the army, should be more than enough.

      • HennyO says:

        Correction *a constitutional democracy.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Yeah, they just want to be able to wear military uniforms at funerals, and such and such. They remind me of the SeaOrg scientologists who wear their phony naval uniforms and salute each other, and hand out their made-up “freedom medal of valor” awards or whatever they call it. I cannot look at the British royals without thinking about the scientologists, they are equally phony.

      • Cara says:

        The whole royal patronage system is a joke and should be applied exclusively to charities. All of the fake military garb and titles need to be eliminated. Truth be told, the royals are an unnecessary nuisance for the military. The men and women of the military have actual work to do.

  2. Izzy says:

    They could have had two more hardworking members of the family there to help, but they are so insecure about being the main characters all time and so scared of Black people that they drove those two to the other side of the world.

    • MSTJ says:

      There is a saying, God works in mysterious ways.

      Thankfully Harry and Meghan are now away from that toxic royal mafia institution. They are independent and able to thrive in the US. 😇

    • Steph says:

      Charles should have been planning for this for at least a decade. It also seems like he never intended Harry to marry. So my question is, even though Meghan would obviously be a great help and hard worker, was this extra body ever included in the numbers for redistribution? Were they expecting to still have 3 extra working members or just Harry and Andrew?

      • MSTJ says:

        Charles’ focus was on repairing Camilla’s reputation and scheming for her the become Queen when his mother died.

      • Jay says:

        Indeed, we heard about how prepared Charles was with the “slimmed down” monarchy, and how the York girls were not to expect to be working royals. In retrospect, it seems like everyone just assumed Harry would just take on more and more of the roles and, I guess, continue to tag along with W and K as “fun, third wheel uncle Harry” for the rest of his life? We all remember how surprised they all seemed when Harry wanted to start a family with Meghan, like they didn’t believe he was worthy of finding love.

        Truly, though, even if he had ended up marrying someone like Chelsy or Cressida (or some other blonde aristocrat), it would always have been an issue because of William and Kate’s insecurities. Kate would always have been compared unfavourably to Harry’s wife, and William would continue to be the Other Brother and seethe with jealousy and spew hatred. And Charles would do nothing.

      • Ciotog says:

        If Harry were still there and single they probably would have given him 598 of the late Queen’s patronages and given Will and Kate the rest.

      • Sue E Generis says:

        This has always baffled me. It does seem, from comments that William made and Charles, that they never expected Harry to marry? But that makes no sense. Was there ever a member of the family that remained permanently single? And why didn’t Charles plan for all these things? He’s not an idiot, technically.

        I’m wondering if this whole thing boils down to Camilla. When she became the One. I’m thinking she encroached on Charles’ life further and further (in a financial sense), and she just kept sucking up more and more resources and he couldn’t say no or he would lose her, until there was nothing left for Harry.

        Camilla first got herself her own estate – huge investment/large ongoing upkeep.
        Then she demanded trust funds for each of her children.
        Then she needed her debts paid off.
        Then she wanted a healthy monthly stipend for clothing, jewelry, travel.

        I mean, when you think about it, the only place this level of resources could come from was Harry’s share. So Harry got less and less until eventually, there was nothing left for him. That would explain the need for him to have holes in his shoes and shop at TK Maxx sales.

        Charles couldn’t take it from William’s lifestyle as he is the heir. I also wonder if William, seeing Camilla keep getting more and more, began to demand more for himself. That’s why all the homes and renos. To make sure everyone was reminded that he was more important than Camilla.

    • Wannabefarmer says:

      @Izzy

      No. H&M leaving when they did was THE BEST thing ever. Imagine if they had not left. The amount of work that would have been piled on them? Along with the soul-searing bad treatment, financial and coercive control, the leaking/planting, treatment of their children? Meg is tungsten but she would not have survived that hell hole. And, imagine the stories if they left after the Q’s death?

      • Sue E Generis says:

        I don’t see how it would have been possible for them to remain. I’m not talking about the viciousness and backstabbing, but financially. Meghan was financing their lifestyle. Meghan was paying her own expenses for tours. She would have been financially crippled eventually, especially when she and Harry tried to expand their family.

  3. ThatsNotOkay says:

    I find it very hard to give a sh*t. I’m truly constipated by this news.

    They are slow rolling the patronages hoping some act of God will save them from this embarrassment and obligations to do actual work for any of the organizations? Got news for you: God’s busy, whether you believe you’re ordained or not.

    • Jojo says:

      I’m with you on this. It’s a Charlie & Willy problem not a Harry & Meghan problem, ergo, I have no shits to give. To paraphrase Jesus…

      The RF
      ‘…shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
      And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

      Asap, hopefully.

  4. Nanea says:

    “Standards are clearly slipping at the big house.”
    👏👏👏🏆💐👏👏👏

    But, but…

    Removing the HRH style of a certain prince and duchess is so much more important, especially as the Men in Grey have proven repeatedly that they think they’re above/better than the Sussexes.

    Who cares about things like patronages or using the correct military ranks and titles in official statements.

  5. Sandra says:

    Just wondering why ANY military branches need patronages? I understand why private or smaller organizations or companies might want or need the royal support or connection just for publicity sake if nothing more…but the Military????
    (This is not meant to disparage the military at all, just don’t understand why a government funded organization would need this type of “OFFICIAL connection)

    • Debbie says:

      It gives them an excuse to wear military-inspired fashions. Otherwise, they’d look awfully silly dressed like little tin soldiers unless it was at those military occasions, get it?

    • Genevieve says:

      They don’t, but go down that path and then everyone would have to face up to the fact that no one needs the royals for anything. Can’t have that kind of truth-telling.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I agree with you. Why even ‘redistribute’ the Queen’s 600 patronages? Just cut them. Or if all the ladies’ clubs in the land or the curling clubs absolutely miss the what? once yearly visit (if that)? will they crumple & fail? They may find that no longer knocking themselves out organizing a visit with tea & cookies that nobody eats, scrounging up yet another bouquet to give away is a pleasant break. Spend more time on the annual Christmas party, or yearly retreat, or upcoming competitions or whatever. And the king is commander-in-chief of all the armed forces, right? Isn’t that enough?
      And speaking of, any of these royal patrons attend the Invictus Games yet? Yeah, right.

      • Couch Potato says:

        Yeah, no charity is “special” when so many has royal patrons. It’s just something they can brag about in their annual report, with no gains. In some countries they are appointed patrons for a certain number of years and for national organisations only.

    • Sue E Generis says:

      Right? The military really doesn’t receive any benefit.

      • Chrissy says:

        It allows each troop, company and regiment etc. to state that they are “fighting for King and Country” during war time. It’s sounds impressive but really means nothing, in other words, it’s all just PR BS!

  6. Eurydice says:

    “Help me, I’m sinking!!!”

  7. Brit says:

    I think the military patronages and veterans are getting fed up of the royals especially in how they handled Harry and his military titles. They all look stupid considering Harry actually served and these fools only use this to throw it in Harry’s face and use these titles as costumes.

    • Ginger says:

      I agree. I’m sure veterans remember how they treated Harry during Remembrance Day in 2020. How they refused to lay his wreath. That’ was just awful and petty. It shows how the RF just use the military for dress up and nothing more.

  8. MSTJ says:

    Not surprised by this new fumble. Mediocre has become their brand – a result of the last 5 years of global scrutiny brought on by their treatment of Meghan and Harry. I would think many people have come to expect mediocrity from the ‘big house’ now.🤷‍♀️

    What a joke! 🤭

  9. Well I’m thinking that there is strife between BP and KP . Today we are putting some pressure on Chuckles for not getting things done in a timely manner with the patronages. Yesterday we have Peg letting us know he and Can’t are doing something for the Queens death anniversary when Chuckles said no events will be taking place. So are the tabloids who own them stirring the pot or are Chuckles and Peg fighting with one another?

    • Mary Pester says:

      @susanCollins, BOTH you can bet bullyam screamed and shouted to take over Harry’s unit. Bullyam stayed safe at home while Harry fought on the front line (William has a price tag and Harry has a spine), shows in strong relief here. They know that neither Charlie boy or Billy blow hard are up to the job of king, and sorry but I wonder how many stained glass windows have exploded at camzillas appointment, it must have been like a scene from the exorcist! Me, I find it doubly hard to accept Edward having ANY military appointments /titles, when he couldn’t even make it through basic training, it’s a bloody insult to everyone of us who served and those who are still serving

  10. Becks1 says:

    Will one of these new patrons be able to wish members of the armed services good luck as they compete in the Invictus Games next month?? Or will that be a bridge too far for them??

    And, “standards are slipping at the big house” is hilarious and I think we should start using that regularly lol.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I’m going to bet that the entire Royal Family makes no mention of the Invictus Games. That’s what they did last year.

    • Jais says:

      Absolutely this. The way they refuse to celebrate the veterans who participate in the IG is just…there are no words. Shame shame shame.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I mentioned something like that just above. Not a one of these royal military patrons have ever attended an Invictus Games (I don’t think), so what are they good for other than the occasional photo op? And the military doesn’t need photo ops, just the royals do.

      • Maxine Branch says:

        What is puzzling to me as an American is how the UK show such little respect for their Veterans. Here in America we go out of our way when we cross a veteran to say, “thank you for your service.” Many of us common folks are grateful to them for defending out right to remain free citizens. Probability why they feel no shame in their treatment of a young man who served his country during war time for 10 years. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were particularly nasty and tons of now veterans were maimed or killed. The Invictus Games are a dignified way of allowing veterans across continents to feel hopeful and alive. For a sitting monarch to not pay respects to these games is showing the lack of respect they have for veterans.

  11. Brassy Rebel says:

    I hope the trombone player is okay. He really went down doing his duty. 🙏

    I laughed at the same places. We’re all becoming attuned to the media shade. And is the Telegraph aware that, at least here in the States, “the big house” is a synonym for prison?

    • Debbie says:

      Notice that the trombone player is still clutching his instrument, even though he’s lying down. As a matter of fact, the standing players are as well, and they maintained their positions instead of helping out a downed member. What this tells me is that there’s no way these people are letting go of their monarchy, regardless of its toxicity. By this point, it’s ingrained in their system and their very DNA.

      • Brassy Rebel says:

        True that! I thought that holding on to the trombone while keeling over was a sign of how indoctrinated the Brits really are. And his mates carrying on as well. Although I think even in the States when you are in a military formation and someone faints, you are not supposed to break ranks to help. It’s a military thing. A stupid one but…

    • Chantal says:

      @BrassyRebel. Lol Well Harry did say the they are trapped and it appears that the BM are their jailers so apt description…

      “Standards keep slipping at the big house” is a more accurate statement. It does sound like the BM is losing all patience with the Rotten Family. The leftover royals are too boring and lazy to write any creative lies about. Special K should be running out of feet to never put wrong and the BM will need to invest in a thesaurus to find ways to make Burger King sound more appealing, statesman like, or attractive.

  12. Harper says:

    Queen Cams, third person in the middle of Di’s marriage and proud evil stepmother to Di’s two bereaved children is the new patroness of the royal chaplains? Comical. I would expect a mild protest from that lot at the indignity of her appointment and foresee her invitation to their holiday luncheon being lost in the mail.

  13. Tarte au Citron says:

    “Standards are clearly slipping” – LOL, no sheet😄

    If that’s not a yanked chain by the Torygraph, I don’t know what is. And annoyingly, they’re right. They shouldn’t have to correct the BRF on things like that.

    • BeanieBean says:

      This is what their insular little system gets them, staff that can’t even keep the fake military posts straight.

  14. BW says:

    ONE 90 year old lady handled 600-plus patronage, so how is it so difficult to distribute these amongst the 7 working royals they have left? If I had the QEII as a patron, I’d be insulted if I was downgraded to anyone who is not the King.

    Also, if I remember correctly, Edward dropped out of the Marines because it was too hard, so I don’t know why he’s even getting any military patronages.

    • SarahCS says:

      That, and her death was not exactly a surprise. How did they not have plans in place ahead of time? Sure there might have been some last minute adjustments but clearly no one in there has the first idea about succession planning. Sure the top job is already lined up but there is a lot more to be managed.

      It just goes to show how in addition to largely hiring incompetent people, the staff then spend their days scrapping over position and influence rather than doing the jobs we, the taxpayers, fund them to do.

      #abolishthemonarchy

      • Concern Fae says:

        Charles is that boss who got one good idea from reading some business book he picked up at an airport bookstore and spends the rest of his career applying it to everything with disastrous results.

        To reduce an organization, you need to understand how it works and the functions it serves. Charles has no interest in either.

    • Ginger says:

      Edward has all of these medals and honors you would think he served in every war, ever. It’s pathetic and insulting to those that actually served.

    • BQM says:

      I don’t think they’ve even dealt with all of Philip’s patronages yet.

      I still can’t get over how being out worked by two 90+ year olds (Philip and QE) for a decade wasn’t a huge embarrassment to Will and Kate. Tells you everything.

  15. SussexWatcher says:

    I know it’s not the full article but interesting that Kkkeen gets no mention here.

    Also the article calls Peggy a pilot but he was a (barely hours-eligible) co-pilot, no?

    The whole thing is a joke. The remaining “working royals” are a joke. This is just a new way to give them some unearned, fake medals and new military costumes to dress up in. So gross.

    They had a hardworking royal who actually cared and worked hard for – and was respected by – the military community and they drove him and his family out of the country. I’ll be so happy for the Invictus Games next month when we’ll have wall-to-wall global coverage of the Sussexes and the IG veterans. I love hearing their stories and watching the competition. Nothing that Harry’s toxic family can do can take away from his successes. Service is universal.

  16. Tessa says:

    Charles might need to reconsider giving patronage to his nieces the York princesses

    • SarahCS says:

      Or just take them himself. Liz had 600 and was clearly not actively involved in all of them. He may not be loved or admired but don’t downgrade people from having the monarch as their patron if there is no-one who has an obviously better claim.

    • sophietta says:

      I’m a Brit and will be 80 years old next birthday. While the queen was alive my generation did give her credit for her steadfastness to duty. However, much of the world has changed, which brings me to the conclusion that many of my age group are welded to obsessive royalty fandom . Sadly, I do not see this ending until a more enlightened generation steps up/in. While Charles frets over his quandary of the 600 charities requiring a royal, do some of the more forward thinking of us actually care? No.War, hunger, floods, riots, homelessness, drug devastation are all huge issues that need to be addressed now. Could the British royals not take a note from the European royal families – as in pare down everything, occasional appearances at important events,
      keeping their rather seedy secrets within the family (apart from Andrew’s crimes) and generally behave in a rational fashion. I support Harry’s move onward and can find no reasonable explanation for the treatment his wife has received.

      What a joyless group our royal family has become. Embarrassment, lies being expounded, questionable actions and a marriage which seems to be unravelling at great speed. Unfortunately, I fail to see an end to this charade.

      • MSTJ says:

        SOPHIETTA – “Could the British royals not take a note from the European royal families – as in pare down everything…” Good question.

        Answer – They wouldn’t. They want the big check from taxpayers annually to continue. They will not want so seem as though they are paring down anything lest the public question the finances expended on what is now seen to operate as a toxic royal mafia institution.

      • MsDoe says:

        Sophietta — Wholeheartedly concur with every word.

        There is no point to the monarchy — the military does just fine without royal patrons; just about every other NATO military and OECD military manages without them. They serve no purpose. The monarchy is a parasitic institution, and it is long past time it was made history.

  17. QuiteContrary says:

    Willy taking Harry’s unit is yet another example of stealing valor … the nerve of that guy associating himself with the unit in which Harry actually served.

    I really do not understand how members of the British military cope with the royal cosplay.

    • Chrissy says:

      I hope Harry’s unit shows its displeasure at Willnot taking over in some way. What an insult to them to force them to be associated with such a vile backstabbing loser. So insulting to them to be forced to accept him.

  18. Noor says:

    The Wales celebrated their new patronages with another video. Are they royals or are they celebrities? Are they wasting the Duchy of Cornwall money on ego trips?

  19. Jaded says:

    So.Much.Shade!

    “…these armed services patronages, for that is in effect what they are, have been much easier to deal with than those in the charity and other sectors, such as the patronage of Sunningdale Ladies Golf Club and the Royal Caledonian Curling Club.”

    LOL, the Sunningdale Ladies Golf Club and the Royal Caledonian Curling Club!! Oh yes, these are truly VERY important patronages worthy of only the uppermost royal attention.

    My eyes are rolling so far back in my head I can see behind me.

  20. Dara says:

    Wait…the Duchess of Gloucester gets a new patronage? Isn’t she one hundred and eleventy years old? Or am I confusing her with another elder royal.

    • Tarte au Citron says:

      You might be thinking of Alexandra? I think she is in her late 80s. Then again, the Duchess of Gloucester is around retirement age if not more, IIRC.

    • Snoodle says:

      She is indeed 77 years old, so at the older end of the currently available members of the family. She is the 5th oldest after the Duke of Kent (87), Princess Alexandra (86), Prince Michael of Kent (81), and her husband the Duke of Gloucester (78).

  21. Allison says:

    Edward lasted two months before dropping out of the Royal Marines. I’m sure he’ll get on well with military members.

  22. Theresa says:

    I’m sorry but that picture of the guard that collapsed looks like he is still playing his trombone whilst laying on the ground.

  23. L4Frimaire says:

    I guess this is a big deal in the UK for some people. Local news.

  24. Feebee says:

    Crystallizes the problem with Meghan doesn’t it? Even if she worked at half her normal pace, she would still run a ring around them. It’s take a year to get these patronage thingies sorted even though they should have been started a year before Elizabeth passed. Just the utter lack of standards working at a glacial pace. If they’d done it in a hurry maybe one could understand the odd error but not the time it’s taken them.

    While the dig at standards is funny, it’s a real concern that should be looked at but of course can’t be for a multitude of reasons.