Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[jacqui24]

It sounds odd ot me that anyone would "decide" that she had been pleased by the result, based on - what exactly?

Well, if I'm talking to someone and they are smiling when we are talking about something. I'd venture to think they are pleased.

 

[Ish]

Time to move on.

 

[Royal Suitor]

In this week's On Heir podcast, Omid and Emily said Meghan's 1st solo engagement will reportedly come on the Australia tour with patronages/projects to be announced after the tour. The divide and conquer approach on tour allows them to see more people and organizations. It will be interesting to see how the media deals with the split focus as presumably Harry will have a simultaneous IG event or other engagement. Hopefully, he'll have private meetings or something that won't create a conflict.

Meghan's met the Commonwealth youth leaders/award winners a few times now. I think going to visit one of their projects could be a good low-risk solo engagement.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Regarding her royal role, I suppose Meghan is planning for some low-key rest and family time mainly over the holidays, as the holidays are upon us now in the U.S. with Thanksgiving next week. I wonder if Meghan will continue to celebrate in some fashion such an important and familiar holiday as Thanksgiving. It really would be interesting to hear her thoughts on how she views her role and daily life shaping up as a member of the British royal family. But I doubt we shall see her being publicly interviewed again any time soon, if ever.

Likely, many royal ladies over the years have had to adjust to a sheltered and constricted royal lifestyle. I get a sense of that in listening to the Duchess of Kent's interviews in recent years that I saw on Youtube, where she speaks about her love of music and teaching music, which she did before she married. She started a project some years ago that helps provide resources and training for gifted young muscians in need. I never knew anything about the life and passions of the Duchess of Kent, so it's nice to hear more about her.

The fact that Meghan now has to be so quiet and OTT discreet most of the time, which is not how she had to carry herself previously, is something I wonder about. She seems blissfully happy, well-adjusted and in harmony right now with Prince Harry by her side. Their South Pacific tour was a great success, as indeed was Meghan's first public venture on behalf of the women of the Hubb Community Kitchen (aiding survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire). Likely, Meghan will continue to shine in her naturally forthright, and genuine-hearted way.

I think Meghan has been and continues to be a great asset to the royals, not only for how much she's meant to Harry being much more settled, happy in his personal life, and purposely focused in his public duties. Part of Meghan's appeal is her former public accessibility and the fact that many people find they can relate to her in ways they haven't necessarily related to the rest of the royals. In that respect and others, Meghan is bringing something fresh, engaging, and updated to the firm. However, at the same time, she's not trying to be the center of attention herself -- she's staying low-key, purpose-driven and hardworking. It's just the media and the public's OTT fascination with her right now that is placing an inordinate spotlight on her. But still that fascination and interest in Meghan brings with it more interest in what all of the royals are doing these days, which is great pr for them and for the important causes they are all advancing.

OTOH, I do not think Meghan is going to singlehandedly change the royal family, as some pundits were suggesting around the time of the royal wedding. I think Meghan will have her hands full simply trying to carve out a niche and a voice for herself within the confines of this ancient institution with all of its rituals, traditions, and old-fashioned royal protocols. Many things have already been changing over the years in the royal family, and Meghan definitely does bring a breath of fresh air, which adds to that sense of change. Of course, this more modern and inclusive approach to courtship and marriage was to some degree predated and foreshadowed by William's union with Kate, a commoner from an upper-middle-class British family.

It's interesting that so many people who have known Meghan over the years speak about her down-to-earth warmth and sweet nature. Here's interesting testimony from actor Mandy Moore who got to know Meghan around 2006 during the time Mandy was making a movie with Meghan's former husband's production company:
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25210185/mandy-moore-meghan-markle-friends/

 

[muriel]

.........and the fact that many people find they can relate to her in ways they haven't necessarily related to the rest of the royals. In that respect and others, Meghan is bringing something fresh, engaging, and updated to the firm......Meghan definitely does bring a breath of fresh air, which adds to that sense of change

Not detracting from Meghan, but the same has been said for pretty much every lady to join the royal family in the last 40 years: Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Catherine, Meghan.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Not detracting from Meghan, but the same has been said for pretty much every lady to join the royal family in the last 40 years: Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Catherine, Meghan.

Yep, I already made reference to this similarity for Kate/ Catherine in my previous post. And honestly, it's always the case that a new royal lady becoming part of the firm engenders excitement, hubbub, predictions, speculations, and OTT interest for a time, depending upon the lady's personality and appeal, which in all of the cases you mention was significant, but changed over time, as is to be expected. Even aristocratic or royal princess brides from other countries joining particular royal families led to excitement in past centuries, whether negative or positive. It was all different though, based on the time period and particular circumstances.

I would point out that in Meghan's case, the situation has been ratcheted up to an even more unique degree simply because of how different she is: self-assured actor/performer, California born and bred, divorced, diverse ethnic background, dysfunctional estranged family members making noise, wealthy and successful in her own right, three years older than Harry. These are significantly different attributes all wrapped up in one gorgeous package, than existed altogether with the other ladies you mentioned.

Of course Kate is well-educated and gorgeous with a wonderful close-knit family, but she did not have a highly successful individual career on her own pre-marriage; Diana was stylish, fashionable, charming and gorgeous, but also very young, emotionally needy, unformed and unable to skillfully handle the OTT media attention and the royal family's jealousy, plus her husband was in love with someone else; Sarah was different, energetic and full of fun, but ultimately also young, inexperienced, clueless and unable to handle the pressures; Sophie indeed was a successful career woman who had a sense of her own identity, and she has thrived as a member of the royals, but not without some bumps along the way, which necessitated her giving up her former career. None of these ladies combined bring all of the unique differences that Meghan has to the royal firm, which doesn't make her more special than the others, just simply different. My previous post was about reflecting on how Meghan will be able to survive as herself and carve out her own voice within the confines of the firm, which as I noted, has been difficult for every high profile and lower profile lady who have married into the firm.

I do think it's possible to equate or compare some of the differences Meghan brings to the British royals with some of the ladies who have married into other European royal families: i.e., some of them have had successful careers, different ethnic backgrounds, been previously married with offspring, or had uniquely different, and/ or problematic pasts that were overcome as disqualifiers via the love of their prince and eventual full acceptance by the families they married into.

 

[royal rob]

Not detracting from Meghan, but the same has been said for pretty much every lady to join the royal family in the last 40 years: Diana, Sarah, Sophie, Catherine, Meghan.

So true I do smile when I hear it

 

[Terri Terri]

Possible patronage for Meghan? She already had meetings with CAMFED in the spring!
Mad About Meghan: Meghan Reads Powerful Poem for Henry van Straubenzee Fund Carol Service & Meghan's Meeting with Michelle Obama

Finally, royal reporter Rebecca English reports helping women in developing countries will be a focus of Meghan's work next year.

​

'The Duchess of Sussex is to put education for women in developing countries at the heart of her public work, when she announces her first royal patronages next year, Mail Online can reveal. ​

'Meghan, 37, has been having secret briefings with a number of organisations, including CAMFED – the Campaign for Female Education – which works in several African countries, including Zambia, which was visited by Prince Harry last week. ​

 

[Osipi]

This organization sounds like its tailor made for Meghan's passion to empower through education. I think we're going to see Meghan announce quite a few patronages and causes that are Commonwealth related along with some at home in the UK but I think the key word to describe them will be "empowerment".

William's prime focus for the Royal Foundation seems to be conservation, Kate's is on youth and child care, Harry is definitely the armed services and I believe Meghan will be empowerment. Of course they all work together on the various projects and support them but each has their specific area of interest.
The "fab four" jointly though works on the Heads Together campaign and the issues that HT cover bleeds into each individual interest also.

 

[jacqui24]

I just posted in the CE thread. Meghan had an event today about higher education and how that improves the world.

Definitely think education, particularly education for women, will be an important issue for her.

 

[wyevale]

Definitely think education, particularly education for women

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

 

[Lilyflo]

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

In developing countries, it's girls who have less access to & participation in education. I think that's likely to be her focus.

 

[jacqui24]

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

Not in developing nations as girls are denied education. In favor of boys at times, in fact. The empowering of women through education was part of her speech in Fiji.

 

[Terri Terri]

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

I'm sorry, but speaking as a black woman from a developing Commonwealth country, your statement is completely off the mark in my part of the world (Caribbean)

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

Wyevale, I usually agree with most of your comments, however, this one is factually inaccurate in ANY environment. I don't want to get too much into details, but I work in both the Public Policy, International Security and Education fields and spent the last few years in Europe to include the UK. I have observed students from all over the world in their schooling environments, and I can absolutely state that in your neck of the woods in the UK, Asian Males are the ones that are 'failing.'

Again, I don't want to detract from the original point of this thread, but if you would love to speak about this topic, you can always DM me.

 

[Mbruno]

Wyevale, I usually agree with most of your comments, however, this one is factually inaccurate in ANY environment. I don't want to get too much into details, but I work in both the Public Policy, International Security and Education fields and spent the last few years in Europe to include the UK. I have observed students from all over the world in their schooling environments, and I can absolutely state that in your neck of the woods in the UK, Asian Males are the ones that are 'failing.'

Again, I don't want to detract from the original point of this thread, but if you would love to speak about this topic, you can always DM me.

I suppose Wyevale’s point was that, in the UK and many other industrial countries, girls now tend to outperform boys academically and low-income boys (regardlelss of race) are the group that is more likely to drop out of school, and/or be involved with drugs, gangs, crime, etc.

It is good that Meghan cares about the plight of girls in traditional ( I.e, non-Western) societies, where women are denied education on religious or cultural grounds. However, I also agree that she should focus on disadvantaged youth and social problems in the UK first. After all, she is a princess of the United Kingdom, not a princess of the world.

 

[jacqui24]

I suppose Wyevale’s point was that, in the UK and many other industrial countries, girls now tend to outperform boys academically and low-income boys (regardlelss of race) are the group that is more likely to drop out of school, and/or be involved with drugs, gangs, crime, etc.

It is good that Meghan cares about the plight of girls in traditional ( I.e, non-Western) societies, where women are denied education on religious or cultural grounds. However, I also agree that she should focus on disadvantaged youth and social problems in the UK first. After all, she is a princess of the United Kingdom, not a princess of the world.

This isn't going to be the only issue she takes up. But it's not a surprise that this will be one of the issues she takes up as she's been very openly passionate about empowering girls in developing nations. This particular meeting is with Association of Commonwealth Universities. We know from early on that the Commonwealth is going to be a big issue for the Sussexes. And certainly there has been a bigger focus on Commonwealth alliances as Britain leaves EU.

And Harry is actually working on issues related to youth violence. And he has also done work in under privileged neighborhoods and youth community centers. In fact, the first engagements they carried out as after the announcement of their engagements is to Nottingham Academy. Meghan has also made subsequent private visits there according to the students.

 

[Terri Terri]

I suppose Wyevale’s point was that, in the UK and many other industrial countries, girls now tend to outperform boys academically and low-income boys (regardlelss of race) are the group that is more likely to drop out of school, and/or be involved with drugs, gangs, crime, etc.

It is good that Meghan cares about the plight of girls in traditional ( I.e, non-Western) societies, where women are denied education on religious or cultural grounds. However, I also agree that she should focus on disadvantaged youth and social problems in the UK first. After all, she is a princess of the United Kingdom, not a princess of the world.

Errmmm..is the Queen not the head of the Commonwealt which makes up 52 other countries? That's where Meghan's focus will be. Her husband is a Commonwealth Youth Ambassador afterall!


And like all other members of the royal family, she's doing work in her area of interest, which was established before she even met Harry!

If there is such a big problem in the UK in that area...what does your Minister of Education do?

Harry and Meghan will focus on the Commonwealth. Charles and William will focus on the UK - that could be one of their areas.

 

[Fijiro]

Queen Elizabeth is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom, but also the Queen of sixteen other countries known as the Commonwealth Realms where she is the head of state of these sixteen countries.
She is also the Head of the Commonwealth which comprises of 53 countries.
So in a way, QEII is almost the “Queen of the world”.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I think that is a pity, for it ISN'T girls that require help [they already excel], it is Boys [particularly White, working-class ones] that are failing....

I'm glad to see someone else is aware of this.

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that this thread has been cleaned up. Before the thread is re-opened, members are invited to read the following information:

A number of posts have been deleted because they were either off-topic or contributed to the thread being closed due to their bickering and/or offensive nature. Such posts are unacceptable and are not in the spirit of the Royal Forums, which serves as discussion forum and source of information for a great number of people. The Royal Forums is not a platform for just a core group of members to use in promoting their own agenda - either in favour of or against the Duchess of Sussex.

The Royal Forums is an online discussion board that focuses on all aspects of royal life - both positive and negative. It is neither a fan-site nor a hater-site.

Everyone contributing to this forum has a right to post their thoughts and points of view - provided that they fall within the Forum Rules. Whether such view is positive or negative towards the subject, it is imperative that all members respect other members’ posts and respond - if such response is even necessary - in a constructive and amicable way.

The continual and progressively negative atmosphere within this thread resulting in a situation where people appear to be unable to post anything other than positive points of view on the subject is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. If members disagree with a post then they need only make their response once and need not reiterate their response over and over again.

Further, we will not tolerate those with an agenda or whose sole purpose is to be disruptive, hateful, to spread disinformation or to ignore TRF rules and this note. It has been noted that both supporters and non-supporters of the Duchess of Sussex fall into the aforementioned categories and we must warn that future issues will be dealt with by suspending their ability to post.

Finally, recent comments about individual journalists have taken on an uncomfortable and unacceptable tone. Constructive criticism of their work is fine, but personal attacks about them will not be tolerated.

 

[jacqui24]

Lots of behind the scenes work lately. It'll be interesting next year.


@Gertsroyals
Follow Follow @Gertsroyals
More
CC Wednesday: The Duchess of Sussex today received Mr Rufus Norris (Artistic Director, the National Theatre).

Gert's Royals
‏

@Gertsroyals
Follow Follow @Gertsroyals
More Gert's Royals Retweeted Gert's Royals
The Queen is Patron of the National Theatre (or the Royal National Theatre as it is officially called.)

 

[Curryong]

You mean this might mean a future patronage? It would be tremendously prestigious if so. The Queen might feel this would be suitable for Meghan and decide to hand over next year. It would be wonderful if it happens, IMO.

 

[Zaira]

I would be so thrilled for the Duchess to be patron of the National Theater!

 

[M. Payton]

I would be so thrilled for the Duchess to be patron of the National Theater!

When did this happen for I have yet to see the news from either KP or BP on this? Just curious ......

 

[Curryong]

Speculation because Meghan received the Director of the National Theatre, and her list of patronages is expected next month.

 

[M. Payton]

Does that mean she now has the National Theater as a patronage or what? I read it yet post did not make sense to me as receiving the Director to me does not mean that is her patronage...........? Having the National Theater as her patronage should come from KP or BP or even HM.......so why would someone think it has happened already? Projection is not facts!

 

[Ista]

Does that mean she now has the National Theater as a patronage or what? I read it yet post did not make sense to me...........?

It's all speculative at this point, but it certainly looks like a possibility.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan hasn't released her list of patronages yet. The speculation comes from thinking that a patronage with the National Theatre (of England) might be on its way, as she received the Artistic Director at a private meeting. The 'receiving' that royals do are events posted in the CC and almost invariably have to do with their own charities and patronages.

 

[Madame Verseau]

A patronage of the Royal National Theater would be in Meghan's wheelhouse given her background.