Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[carlota]

exciting that meghan's patronages are being announced soon. the theatre sounds indeed very fitting. it is a shame though that she will go on maternity leave shortly after the announcement though so there won't be a lot of action ocurring in several months, i suspect as they get settled with the new baby and she returns from maternity leave...

 

[Terri Terri]

Agreed. So all the young royals met with the Queen for tea last week it would appear. So it seems that a few more of the Queen's patronage will be turned over to the younger generation. Sweet!

 

[Madame Verseau]

Apparently the queen has handed off patronages before

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...set-hand-Duchess-Sussex-royal-patronages.html

Twenty in 2016. Is the Royal National Theater considered a major patrnonage?

 

[Fem]

Is the Royal National Theater considered a major patrnonage?

Yep, pretty much.

 

[jacqui24]

exciting that meghan's patronages are being announced soon. the theatre sounds indeed very fitting. it is a shame though that she will go on maternity leave shortly after the announcement though so there won't be a lot of action ocurring in several months, i suspect as they get settled with the new baby and she returns from maternity leave...

There won’t be a lot of action during the summer months anyways. So really, she’s just missing the rest of Spring. I’m sure she’ll be back by Fall.

 

[Rudolph]

I think we’ll see HM and The Duke of Edinburgh give up more patronages in 2019.

 

[Countessmeout]

Apparently the queen has handed off patronages before

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...set-hand-Duchess-Sussex-royal-patronages.html

Twenty in 2016. Is the Royal National Theater considered a major patrnonage?

Yes around her 90th birthday it was announced she was giving up 25 patronages. All the senior royals received a few, including Kate. Philipmhascalso given up some. It's no surprise Meghan would get at least one now and not all just new ones. Be interesting to see what she gets.

Look forward to hearing her first few.

 

[TLLK]

There are some patronages that are the preserve of the monarch regardless of their own personal interests. Without going too far from Meghan I will give an example from an area of my own interest: The MCC or Marylebone Cricket Club and Middlesex Cricket Club (both based at Lords Cricket Ground) have had the monarch as their patron through multiple reigns. Philip is the cricket fan amongst the Queen's family - even reportedly watching the cricket while at Ascot in the Royal Box but still the Queen is the Patron. Charles is patron of Surrey Cricket Club as it is based at The Oval Cricket Ground which is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall - Surrey's badge is the Prince of Wales feathers as well. However the instant the Queen dies Charles will become Patron of the MCC and have to move his loyalty across London from The Oval and Surrey to Lords and Middlesex while William will take on the Surrey patronage.

The National Theatre may be a good choice for Meghan but it would also suit Edward and Charles. Charles is already patron of the Royal Shakespeare Company so he also has an interest in the theatre.

ILuvBertie-Do you believe it might be possible that Meghan could become the President of the National Theatre while QEII remains the patron? I've noticed this with a few of QEII's patronages ie: Girl Guides UK with QEII as patron and The Countess of Wessex as the President of the organization.

 

[jacqui24]

ILuvBertie-Do you believe it might be possible that Meghan could become the President of the National Theatre while QEII remains the patron? I've noticed this with a few of QEII's patronages ie: Girl Guides UK with QEII as patron and The Countess of Wessex as the President of the organization.

I think that would be a good compromise with some of the Queen's cousin's charities if one of the younger royals is going to take it over. They've served QEII for decades, and there is always a worry if they are just being cast aside. I think this would be a nice transition where they would remain the royal patron for the charity, but then there will be someone to take over afterwards.

 

[Iluvbertie]

ILuvBertie-Do you believe it might be possible that Meghan could become the President of the National Theatre while QEII remains the patron? I've noticed this with a few of QEII's patronages ie: Girl Guides UK with QEII as patron and The Countess of Wessex as the President of the organization.

That would depend on whether the organisation is happy to have two royals associated with it. Some do and others don't preferring to have a royal in one position and a person who is able to give more time to the organisation in the other role.

With most of the charities/organisations most royals do one or two engagements every couple of years or so. The royals have over 4000 patronages etc and yet only about 600 get any attention in any given year with some getting 100s (Duke of Edinburgh's Award) while most get no attention directly in most years. That is why many organisations prefer to have a royal patron who does very little - other than is a name - and a president who is actually able to do things directly on an almost day to day basis.

 

[Dman]

Nowadays, the young royals don’t take much on unless they can have an active role in these organizations.

 

[TLLK]

That would depend on whether the organisation is happy to have two royals associated with it. Some do and others don't preferring to have a royal in one position and a person who is able to give more time to the organisation in the other role.

With most of the charities/organisations most royals do one or two engagements every couple of years or so. The royals have over 4000 patronages etc and yet only about 600 get any attention in any given year with some getting 100s (Duke of Edinburgh's Award) while most get no attention directly in most years. That is why many organisations prefer to have a royal patron who does very little - other than is a name - and a president who is actually able to do things directly on an almost day to day basis.

Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate your knowledge of the British royal family.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Nowadays, the young royals don’t take much on unless they can have an active role in these organizations.

I think this was/is true when the Cambridges and Harry were getting their Foundation started and building it. Something that was theirs, just as the Prince’s Trust was Charles’s and The Duke of Edinburgh Awards were Philip’s.

But I also think that was something that was said, because the Queen and Prince Philip were not ready to step down from their patronages. It would have been unfortunate had William, Kate & Harry taken on a bunch of brand new patronages and not been able to step in as patron of many of their grandparents’ roles when the time came. The BRF don’t rush things.

 

[Dman]

I think this was/is true when the Cambridges and Harry were getting their Foundation started and building it. Something that was theirs, just as the Prince’s Trust was Charles’s and The Duke of Edinburgh Awards were Philip’s.

But I also think that was something that was said, because the Queen and Prince Philip were not ready to step down from their patronages. It would have been unfortunate had William, Kate & Harry taken on a bunch of brand new patronages and not been able to step in as patron of many of their grandparents’ roles when the time came. The BRF don’t rush things.

It still is true. They only take on roles that they can be active in. Those days of just being a royal figurehead of 100 or so charitable organizations are done. No, nothing is rushed, but, Meghan is due to receive some workload too.

 

[Osipi]

If there is one thing I've learned about the Queen over the years, its that she is a woman that is not only dedicated to her role as monarch but she keeps on top of everything that is going on in regards to the monarchy. This includes all the items in her red boxes, her patronages and her "Firm". She loves to ask questions.

Its not surprising with the Queen and Philip well into their 90s that they realize that its time for the "team" to take over charities and patronages and they actively start thinking about who would be the best fit for that certain patronage. It was planned eons ago (well it seems that way in the royal world) that it would be Edward that inherits his dad's Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme along with the title when it becomes available.

Meghan is fairly new to being included in the team but then again, when we think about it, William, Harry and Kate actually are relatively new to being full time working royals for the "Firm". That's pretty much empty dinner plates at the table to serve up new patronages for the "Firm". The Queen doesn't just "dish" out her patronages but carefully checks with her family as to who would enjoy it most, be the best fit and goes from there.

I love the analogy that, I believe it was Marg, gave that when it comes to the monarchy, the Queen is gracefully gliding along in the pond like a beautiful swan but underneath the water, those swan feet are paddling fast. The "Firm" is always in motion.

Most likely Meghan will start out with a short list of about 4-5 patronages and in the first months of 2019, will officially visit them. She probably will keep active with her work during her maternity leave too but just not out and about in the public eye but rather doing behind the scenes work learning, planning and plotting for what is to come. Even into the fall months for when she returns to full time duties. She won't be idle.

 

[ACO]

Not surprising that HM and DoE might be passing down their patronages. It makes sense especially as she is slowing down and he is retired. The younger royals should be stepping up now.

 

[Fem]

It still is true. They only take on roles that they can be active in. Those days of just being a royal figurehead of 100 or so charitable organizations are done. No, nothing is rushed, but, Meghan is due to receive some workload too.

That's a very interesting view on the subject. Especially since between Prince Charles and The Queen there's probably more than 1000 patronages. Amongs them organizations who had a royal patron even before the Queen became the Queen. Even if you cut out those connected to private interests, you're still left with a lot. And they'll need a royal patron.

Yes, involvement is great. Yes, being active and creating projects that make the world a better place is also great. But I doubt that there will be that big of a change in the BRF in the system of patronages. The Cambridges and Sussexes can do it now, since they still have a time, but I think they'll need to mix it in the future: a lot of the "cutting ribbons and shaking hands" engagements and then one, maybe two special, personal initiatives. Which... is basically how the system is working now

 

[Osipi]

The area for the younger royals that is going to increase quite a bit in the next few years to a decade will be their roles in patronages representing the "Firm". The monarchy itself. We're just very familiar right now with the work they all do for their Royal Foundation.

Now we can really see why this is a full time job for these royals. They'll have their "official Firm" roles and duties. They'll have their work with the Royal Foundation and of course, they each have their own personal endeavors that they pursue.

When we think of it, its kind of hard be "lazy" eh?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...news-feminism-womens-rights-royal-family-news

This article brings up some interesting views published in an academic journal article on Meghan's changing role within the confines of the British royal family. The academicians suggest that Meghan's advocacy for feminism is now muted/ silenced. I wouldn't go as vociferously far as they do in their assessment. But it's true that Meghan has had to make a number of personal sacrifices as a result of marrying into this ancient family and royal institution. At the moment, she's still adjusting to a new marriage, her first pregnancy, a new country, and a different lifestyle, so I wouldn't be quite as harsh as the academic writers appear to be.

I think what Meghan is confronting is part of an age-old question surrounding the role of women generally in our patriarchal culture. The trappings of British royalty complicates things for Meghan chiefly in her having to completey adjust when she speaks and how freely she speaks. But I still think she will strive to make a difference in as many ways that she can on behalf of women and women's equality. She will just not speak as vocally out front as she normally would be able to do. She will probably let her voice speak for her more behind-the-scenes in the charitable work that she will be doing for a number of community projects and organizations, particularly those under the umbrella of the Royal Foundation. We have seen that in her successful work with the women of Hubb Community Kitchen, and likely other endeavors that she's been planning under the radar.

Meghan certainly seems to be very proactive and engaged in finding ways to make a difference in areas she's passionate about. The fact that she is the one who sought out the opportunity to visit Brinsworth House shows that she is actively engaged in seeking what she can do to make the most impact. She is not waiting for others to assign her tasks. She's trying to find meaningful projects where she can use her high profile to help others in ways that are attuned to interests and passions she held in her previous life, before Harry.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t have time for a longer post right now, I’ll get back to this topic later for a more thorough discussion. What I will say is this, everyone operates within the confines of SOMETHING. Even these academics. They operate within the confines of policies set forth in their school and they operate within the confines of their lives. It doesn’t mean feminism is dead or gone because they make certain compromises. Meghan certainly isn’t silenced. She has to sidestep certain topics, but ALL of us have situations that puts us in certain positions where we can’t say EVERYTHING without consequences. Doesn’t mean we aren’t feminists and can’t work on the issue of gender equality.

 

[Lumutqueen]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...news-feminism-womens-rights-royal-family-news

The academicians suggest that Meghan's advocacy for feminism is now muted/ silenced. I wouldn't go as vociferously far as they do in their assessment. But it's true that Meghan has had to make a number of personal sacrifices as a result of marrying into this ancient family and royal institution. At the moment, she's still adjusting to a new marriage, her first pregnancy, a new country, and a different lifestyle, so I wouldn't be quite as harsh as the academic writers appear to be.

It's an express article so i'm not taking it hugely seriously, but what I do agree with is your assessment MaiaMia. I'm not Meghans biggest fan, but what I do think she is doing for feminism is being in the royal family itself. Now that probably sounds like a silly thing to say, but she can do SO much in the position she's in. Yes she has to be careful with it, don't rock the boat when you've just got in it, let it settle first but then give it a good tip!

It's something that unfortunately i haven't seen from Catherine, and it's something I want so badly from Meghan is to really use her position to help people. She has started, her unannounced trips to places, and her most recent to Brinsworth is on the right track, but she needs to keep it that way.

 

[Dman]

It Isn’t true, folks, Meghan remains a feminist and no one is making her give that up.

 

[Ista]

I don’t have time for a longer post right now, I’ll get back to this topic later for a more thorough discussion. What I will say is this, everyone operates within the confines of SOMETHING. Even these academics. They operate within the confines of policies set forth in their school and they operate within the confines of their lives. It doesn’t mean feminism is dead or gone because they make certain compromises. Meghan certainly isn’t silenced. She has to sidestep certain topics, but ALL of us have situations that puts us in certain positions where we can’t say EVERYTHING without consequences. Doesn’t mean we aren’t feminists and can’t work on the issue of gender equality.

This is an excellent point, and worthwhile remembering when discussing not just Meghan, but every member of every royal family. They are all constrained by something, especially when the topic touches on something that could be construed as having to do with their country's constitution. A case in point is the recent kerfuffle in Japan over remarks made by Prince Akishino pertaining to the funding for his brother's upcoming enthronement.

So it will be up to Meghan to figure out how to make her points and speak for her causes within the confines of her role and position. I'm fairly confident that she's going to figure out how to hit that balance, even if it takes her some trial and error, and even if there are issues she'd like to speak out on and and can't.

 

[Fem]

It Isn’t true, folks, Meghan remains a feminist and no one is making her give that up.

No, she's not giving up being a feminist and the article is not about that. It's about how she has to change and adapt to a new role to comply with the rules of the royal family. It's like... She can't talk freely and openly about abortions or Brexit or any political issue (while she could say anything she wanted to before). It doesn't mean she's suddenly not a feminist, just that she's playing with a different set of rules.

 

[Mbruno]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...news-feminism-womens-rights-royal-family-news



I think what Meghan is confronting is part of an age-old question surrounding the role of women generally in our patriarchal culture.

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize the Britsih Royal Family as "patriarchal" when the head of the family actually happens to be a woman (The Queen) !


More so than being "patriarchal", what the BRF has to be above all nowadays is politically neitral, and that's where Meghan's "being silenced" is coming from IMHO. Meghan was too much of a political activist before getting married and that is obviously incompatible with her new status as a princess of the United Kingdom.

 

[Jacknch]

Several posts have been deleted / edited to remove comments / responses to comments that were distracting and moving the discussion away from the topic. Let's avoid analysing the way in which other members post or making personal comments about one another. Thank you.

 

[Gawin]

Fair enough, but I wouldn't characterize the Britsih Royal Family as "patriarchal" when the head of the family actually happens to be a woman (The Queen) !


More so than being "patriarchal", what the BRF has to be above all nowadays is politically neitral, and that's where Meghan's "being silenced" is coming from IMHO. Meghan was too much of a political activist before getting married and that is obviously incompatible with her new status as a princess of the United Kingdom.

I think you're right - feminism isn't the only issue. It's the fact that Meghan needs to steer away from politics when she speaks out on causes dear to her heart. It will also be impossible for her to speak out on inequities due to social class or privilege now that she's at the top of a social structure based on them.

But it's also fair to call the BRF patriarchal. The Queen is only Queen because she didn't have a brother and while Parliament has altered the rules in favor of gender neutral succession, the Queen has limited peerage titles to male members of her family. Princess Margaret didn't receive a peerage, her husband did. Princess Anne didn't receive a peerage but her younger brothers did. And in all cases the titles can only be inherited by sons, not daughters.

 

[Fros]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...could-work-british-theatres-amid-fears-royal/

I am not sure if this is the right thread but a great article in the telegraph about Meghan's possible future work with British theaters. How they are seen as elitist and non-inclusive and how Meghan could work with theatres to make them more inclusive.

Fascinating insight about how the royal opera and the royal theater are both said to be in discussion to drop "royal" prefix from their name:

Earlier this year, Rufus Norris suggested the National Theatre had deliberated eschewed the “Royal” from its title for fear of putting new audiences off.
“This country is still very class divided and anything that adds to that perception, that this place is not open to everybody, could be a downfall,” he said. “I fear that for some people that [the ‘Royal’ prefix] adds to that perception.”

and a some wonderful quotes from Alex Clifton, artistic director of Storyhouse, which the Duchess of Sussex visited with the Queen during a visit to Chester in June, said yesterday that “any arts orgs would really benefit from having her on board as an advocate”.

“The Duchess provides extraordinary leverage into a massive range of communities. She’s a really powerful voice and can help any theatre achieve more of its mission, in terms of telling stories to as many and as broad a range of people as possible.”

 

[Dman]

A very fine article indeed, Fros! I think Meghan can help in making the arts in the UK more inclusive.

 

[muriel]

I think Meghan can help in making the arts in the UK more inclusive.

How do you think Meghan, from her position through marriage of supreme privilege and entitlement, might make the arts more inclusive in the UK?