Could the princes' future wives continue working?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not only will the husbands of the York girls be expected to work - so are the York girls themselves. They aren't going on the royal payroll so either they have real jobs - as Eugenie has with the art gallery - or that are seen as do nothing socialites - like Beatrice who has shown an inability to stick to a job for more than 9 months since leaving university.

Charles isn't going to be supporting them and nor is William or George so they will have to marry well, earn their own money, support themselves from their trustfunds or seek government assistance.

They are neither wanted or needed as working royals - either by the next couple of Kings or the British public (my two trips there in the last two years saw not one person speak with any liking for the girls - total 'wastes of air and space' was the most common comment I heard when I asked what people thought about them. No one I have ever spoken to in Britain or elsewhere in my travels who is British has ever had a good word to say about the girls - except for the British posters on here.

Even when I was at Trooping the Colour and they came past in the carriage the comments were scathing about the girls from everyone around me.

I know there has been no 'confirmation' from BP or the BRF about the future role of the girls but the story about a slimmed down royal family has been doing the rounds now for close on a quarter of a century. The people will feel betrayed if Charles doesn't follow through with this idea now - rightly or wrongly. The press are in control and they have made it clear - good Diana's sons vs bad Fergie's daughters - and so no role for the girls.

Some places I have been I have read that the public expect even Charles' siblings to be wiped from the engagements roster at his accession - not just the Queen's cousins - but definitely Andrew, Edward and Sophie. Anne is given a pass due to her past hard work.

I do read a lot of places other than here and the DM and it does make for some very interesting reading with a range of views expressed with this seeming to be in the minority of wanting a large BRF.
 
Last edited:
In hindsight Andrew might wish they had refused the HRH titles for his girls...they might be much better off, as Anne's children are, without them.




LaRae
 
The York princesses are granddaughters of the current Monarch. When Charles ascends to the throne, they are nieces to the Monarch. Other than their titles, they would be on the same level as what Princess Margaret's children are currently. Lady Sarah and the Earl and Countess of Snowdon do not undertake royal duties.

The BRF had to go into damage control after the scandal surrounding the Countess of Wessex. I suspect there is now an unwritten rule that the Monarch's children and their respective spouses should only perform royal duties. It's unfair, especially if their spouse are not really in the public eye.
 
In hindsight Andrew might wish they had refused the HRH titles for his girls...they might be much better off, as Anne's children are, without them.
LaRae

And in time, Edward's kids - if a Letters Patent ever is issued
 
it would have been wrong for Andrew to refuse to have his daughters HRH nad I'm sure the idea never entered his head. As the grandchildren of the queen in the male line they are princesses. With Edward it was different, because the RF had endured a period of trouble with the scandals and Diana's death and since Ed's children were so far down the line, it was understandable for them not to use royal titles.
Beat and Eugenie can work if they want to or live as rich socialites if they want to. the only difference is they are titlted Princess.. but that doesn't sotp them working.
 
It doesn't seem fair that a royal is criticized for whatever they do. If they try and work they are using their royal status, if they only do charities they are called lazy and called upon to get a real job, if they say screw it and give up royal title status and money they are regarded as ungrateful.
I think the York girls husbands should be allowed to work if they want to if Charles truly wants to slim things down; same for Louise and James when they come of age.
Of course the Yorks' girls husbands (if they get any) will be able to work. Royal husbands apart from P Philip, have had careers.. there's no barrier.
and I cant imagine why you think that "royals who "only do charities" are called lazy." if they are dedicated to their role, and put in the time and have a real interest, they could hardly be called lazy. Charles's work is mostly in the charity field apart from managing the DOC Estates.. and I think most people would say that he is dedicated, interested in the work and very hard working.
If he were someone who did a few engagements a month, took liltte interest in the background of his charities etc, yes I think he could be called lazy but charity wrok per se is not lazy man's work.

I don't know of any royals who have left the "job" and taken ordinary work who are called ungrateful? Some continental royals have given up the conventional royal role, (usually younger sons etc) and they work in ordinary jobs.. they retain their titles usually but their children aren't always titled prince/ss... but something like count/countess...
but I dont know of anyone who calls them ungrateful because they are not required for "royal duties" or because they prefer an ordinary career, so long as they are not the heirs...
 
Last edited:
And in time, Edward's kids - if a Letters Patent ever is issued

Edward's children don't have HRH because 'The Queen's Will' has been made known. No LPs are actually needed. That is an unnecessary formality because the change was enforced by the simple procedure of 'The Queen's Will' being made known.

I even wrote to BP to have that confirmed and received that in writing from BP - The Queen's Will - is all that is needed.

The only way to deal with Edward's children via LPs would be to limit HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch through the heir apparent and that would have stripped HRHs from the Queen's cousins.

Even William's dukedom is dated not from the date of the issue of the LPs but the date The Queen's Will was made known - that is the 29th April, 2011 not the date in May when she actually signed the LPs. The same with other honour recipients - the date is the date announced not the date invested, which can be months later (or in some cases even years or never). The piece of paper isn't the crucial thing at all.
 
Edward's children don't have HRH because 'The Queen's Will' has been made known. No LPs are actually needed. That is an unnecessary formality because the change was enforced by the simple procedure of 'The Queen's Will' being made known.

I even wrote to BP to have that confirmed and received that in writing from BP - The Queen's Will - is all that is needed.

The only way to deal with Edward's children via LPs would be to limit HRH to the grandchildren of the monarch through the heir apparent and that would have stripped HRHs from the Queen's cousins.

Even William's dukedom is dated not from the date of the issue of the LPs but the date The Queen's Will was made known - that is the 29th April, 2011 not the date in May when she actually signed the LPs. The same with other honour recipients - the date is the date announced not the date invested, which can be months later (or in some cases even years or never). The piece of paper isn't the crucial thing at all.

I had to look that up! But yes - the the Queen's or King's Will is enough relating to titles. Actually - that kind of makes sense.

Here is what my research has discovered:

"At the time, many people have expressed the notion that a press release was not sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917, and that Louise could not be deprived of her "rights" without letters patent. The fact is that royal styles and titles are a matter of royal prerogative, that does not require the advice of the government (the Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without any such advice). The sovereign's will and pleasure is all that matters, and she can change styles and titles as she pleases...in particular the view of the Law Officers that "the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed", and the opinion of Sir Geoffrey Ellis that "precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown"). How that pleasure is publicized, by letters patent, warrant, press release or verbal declaration, is immaterial."
 
A friend suggested, in a discussion here in Australia last night, that in theory Meghan could bolster the marital coffers by accepting guest parts in films after her marriage, at least in the US. I had so many reasons why this wouldn't work, either in Britain and the US, that I could hardly get them all out.

Meghan would be needed for Royal duties in the UK as the Queen and Charles and Camilla age. She would be a support to Harry.

Security concerns would be horrendous. And RPOs couldn't be used in the US.

If she accepted an ongoing role in Britain the tabloids would go mad criticising, examining forthcoming plot developments, trying to pick up gossip from fellow cast and crew. Any friendships, especially with male fellow actors would be examined and speculated on.

I just can't see an acting career working at all.
 
I have to agree. There is just no way that an acting career could ever be compatible with being a working royal. But.... waitaminute.... all is not lost!

Perhaps as time passes and Meghan is looking to decide where to focus her energies on personal projects such as Kate being interested in photography and becoming patron of the National Portrait Gallery, Meghan could take on something to do with dramatic arts. She'd definitely know the ropes and be able to encourage people with aspirations.

Then again, she may be called on too to do a "Princess Beatrice" and do a officially sanctioned "cameo" role like Bea did in "Young Victoria". :D

Princess Beatrice's walk on part with the Queen - Telegraph
 
I read it's already a security issue on Suits as it is. Highly unlikely she would be able to continue as an actress if they marry from that perspective alone.
 
I am a bit baffled at people saying she could accept roles here and there. She is an average actress and hardly amongst the best in her age bracket. I doubt they would want her when they can get a Jennifer Lawrence instead and not have to deal with the palace and extra bodyguards.

There is a reason why Suits is her most notable work to date and that wouldn't have changed if she hadn't met Harry.
 
Meghan Markle isn't going for the same roles as Jennifer Lawrence. Other than a supporting role in Suits, the rest of her career is basically a Hallmark movie and single episode guess spots. It's not like she has had a Grace Kelly like career. A royal Duchess in the most well known royal family in the world doing public engagements or a guest spot in NCIS ?
 
Which is why she couldn't do guest spots. Not nearly high profile enough and she wouldn't ever be considered for the high profile roles because simply put, the talent isn't there. No matter how you look at it, this marriage means she's moving up the career ladder.
 
She's made it pretty clear she wanted a family and realized her career would probably have to end or take a back seat in order to have it (how she wants it)....and of course if she marries Harry she can focus on charitable groups/works instead. Perhaps something she would rather do anyway.


LaRae
 
Moving up the career ladder as far as her acting career is probably a good way to put it. Not in terms of her personal career but what her acting experiences and struggles and successes have taught her over the years.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to really see Meghan and her (if it does happen... always have to remember nothing is a set deal yet) future father-in-law find out they are kindred souls when it comes to the arts. The Prince of Wales, himself, is a patron or president of more than 20 performing arts organizations. This very well may be a niche where Meghan would find herself comfortable and enthused about taking on.

People that have the inclination and the talent to perform artistically don't always stay in roles or keep auditioning for parts. Some find that their acting career leads them to producing and directing. Some find fulfillment in teaching method acting. Some, like Meghan would see being a patron of an artistic/dramatic organization a more fulfilling role of her talents.

So, maybe, just maybe, Meghan wouldn't be sacrificing all that she's worked for over the years but finding different ways to put it to good use. :D

https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-prince-of-wales/interests/performing-arts
 
Article in the Sunday Times 10th September - usually a reliable source

This is the part of the article re continued working:

Sources close to the prince suggest he may be planning “a modern kind of royal marriage” that would allow Markle to pursue her career and charity interests beyond official royal duties.

One source said Markle was unlikely to become an “Identikit duchess”: “Harry will want his wife to have freedom and not be restricted to becoming a royal bride, giving everything up. He will push hard for that.

“I don’t think the Queen will stand in the way of a more modern kind of royal marriage; she backs her grandsons to the hilt. The palace courtiers must not stand in the way. If Harry is frustrated on this, it will be to the royal family’s detriment.”

The last attempt by a royal spouse to pursue a career ended in disaster. In 2001 the Countess of Wessex quit her own public relations firm after it emerged her business partner had tried to exploit her royal status.

END

I wonder if the idea is being put out there to elicit a response..... but I don't see how it could work. Security is one issue and the other is the same reason re Sophie "exploit her royal status"
Also - I can't see how the smaller BRF would work without H's wife.

It is a dilemma for any professional woman - I'm sure Letitzia struggled with giving up her v successful career.

Full article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...meghan-markle-drop-hints-of-wedding-2507jtb5q
 
It sure makes for interesting times for us royal watchers though. :D

Thanks for the info, cepe!
 
I think that's just wishful thinking by the media trying to stir things up.


LaRae
 
I think that's just wishful thinking by the media trying to stir things up.


LaRae

I think it could be a "fishing" trip by KP or an entire pack of lies! :lol:
 
I think it could be a "fishing" trip by KP or an entire pack of lies! :lol:

I think it very unlikely she would even be able to continue with being an actress...she herself has expressed she would be willing to change her career path if she met someone and had a family. She's also, IIRC, talked about one of the reasons she works is in order to do her charity work (finance it)...so based on all that I doubt KP is trying to test the waters.


LaRae
 
Or it could be an elaborate game of PR chess:

  1. float the idea that Harry hopes that Meghan can still maintain a bit of a career (this develops a romantic narrative of a prince looking out for his lady)
  2. wait for a bit
  3. announce the engagement
  4. in the engagement interview, Meghan says that, while Harry was supportive, she's prepared to give it all up to pour her efforts into being a member of the BRF (this develops a "dutiful" narrative, which maintains the romantic narrative -- Harry is still supportive -- but Meghan shows that she "gets" what being in the BRF is all about)

With that said, I think it's significant that The Times is talking marriage. They haven't spilt a lot of ink on this relationship to date (Roya has only written about it 3 times previously that I can find); the fact that they've started makes my spidey-sense tingle.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to the press and the British royals, I believe half of what I see and none of what I hear until I get to look in the horse's mouth. :whistling:
 
I don't know how accurate that article is, but it isn't difficult to believe that Harry would push for Meghan to have more freedom in her role as duchess and the kind of work she would be able to pursue. I don't believe continuing her acting career would be a part of that but I can definitely see Harry as a vocal supporter in Meghan being allowed to expand her role a bit beyond what most would expect.

And I have to admit, if part of the intent here is to push a romantic narrative, then it's working, at least for me. :wub: :lol: I thought the statement released back in November was partly an attempt by Harry to show Meghan how serious he is about her and thus, was quite a romantic gesture. I liked it very much. ?

Which is why she couldn't do guest spots. Not nearly high profile enough and she wouldn't ever be considered for the high profile roles because simply put, the talent isn't there. No matter how you look at it, this marriage means she's moving up the career ladder.

While Meghan may not be an Emmy or Oscar-worthy actress, I don't think her talent, or lack thereof, necessarily has anything to do with what roles she has been offered or may be offered. There are plenty of actors (especially actors of color) out there who'll never get a chance to star in the kind of movies that are offered to someone like Jennifer Lawrence (who is highly overrated, imo) and it really has nothing to do with a lack of talent or acting ability. There are many factors that determine who does or doesn't land high profile roles... talent is only one factor and, oftentimes, it's not even the most important.
 
Last edited:
The Times article that just came out!

I read it. I just read it, "Sources close to the prince suggest he may be planning “a modern kind of royal marriage” that would allow Markle to pursue her career and charity interests beyond official royal duties.

One source said Markle was unlikely to become an “Identikit duchess”: “Harry will want his wife to have freedom and not be restricted to becoming a royal bride, giving everything up. He will push hard for that."


I told you all that this is what Harry wants for Meghan and he's gonna get it too - Their marriage and Meghan's career. He does not want her having to give up everything! Kate did not have anything like that worth debating giving up or not prior to marriage up but Meghan does.
 
Last edited:
I think that's just wishful thinking by the media trying to stir things up.


LaRae


Oh? Just like it was highly unlikely to some years ago that Harry would fall in love with an American much less a half black woman? And look what's happened.

This is what Harry wants for Meghan and their marriage and I believe the source. It's a respected new sources for goodness sake!
 
But American Observer, curb your enthusiasm for a minute at take a good look at the bolded pieces there. It's replete with 'suggest' 'may be planning' 'unlikely to'. This is press speculation. Yes, The Times is a respected source, but none of it is set in stone stuff.

And Harry is obligated to his father and grandmother and eventually brother to do his best for 'The Firm'. That entails bringing his wife on board too. She might get some time off occasionally to do things for charities she's been involved with in Rwanda or India. But roles in film and TV land? Miles too difficult on security grounds alone.
 
And so, bit by bit, the so necessary distance which every monarchy needs, is eroding, especially when Meghan continues her "career".

Harry and Meghan. The names alone. They could be contestants in The Only Way Is Essex. The experiment of his once dashing uncle Andrew with the loudmouth, unpoised and vulgar Sarah apparently has not learned Harry a lesson. History is repeating.

In Italy Prince Emmanuele Filiberto married actress Clotilde Courau. She continued "working". Since then we see a red-carpet addicted "royal" vogueing, posing, duckfacing in designer clothing, completely outshadowing her husband. When Meghan continues her "career", with the toxic combination of swarms of paperazzi plagueing her, I see no good in all this.
 
Last edited:
Harry's name is really Henry, as you very well know Duc, (the name borne by eight kings of England, stretching back to Norman times) and as Meghan (whose real first name is Rachel) is not vulgar, loudmouthed, unpoised or unpolished I don't see the connection, with Sarah or with Clothilde.
 
Last edited:
But isn't it unfair to demand from prince's wives to stop doing what they like? Meghan will never be a queen, she will be just a duchess, what's wrong with acting for a duchess? Ok, not acting but /-put any other activity/-

Letr's face it: Prime Minister wife can continue working, president wives can continue working. Why not a duchess?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom