Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[Cocoasneeze]

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

I think Alex Clifton, in that Telegraph article Fros posted above, answered this very well:

"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”.
“As an artist and actor herself, she understands the practice and can speak with authority herself,” he said. “She’s an accessible, dynamic, modern-facing presence: it’s impossible to overstate the impact that someone with her authority can have on people’s lives.


“As an industry we speak very easily and confidently to existing audiences. The challenge is to reach new, more diverse, more traditionally marginalised communities.
“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.”

 

[soapstar]

Posts discussing the official engagements that Meghan has done this year, have been deleted. Not only was the subject off-topic, but the discussion was brought over from a recently closed thread. When a thread is closed by a mod for review, please don't bring the discussion over to other threads.

 

[Dman]

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

Through initiatives and programs. She can champion causes that will help bring about change. It’s what the royals do. They use their privileged positions to help charitable organizations.

 

[jacqui24]

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.”

That’s a very interesting read. While I knew Meghan met with Rufus Norris, I didn’t know that National Theater actually removes Royal to appeal to a broader audience. I’ve met with a local symphony close to where I live, and I know they’ve had serious struggles with attracting a young and more diversed audience. Didn’t know that a major national theater is also struggle with it to such an extent.

 

[muriel]

Through initiatives and programs. She can champion causes that will help bring about change. It’s what the royals do. They use their privileged positions to help charitable organizations.

Could you provide a little more detail on how Meghan's involvement per se would help in the way that you are suggesting?

 

[Osipi]

One word jumps into my mind when I think of how Meghan, with her life experience, could draw young people towards the arts. That word is empowerment.

It doesn't mean that young people would become star struck and strive to be a movie star or a thespian but rather be encouraged to know they can do anything they set their minds to doing and its in the dramatic arts, the music training or the photography lessons and even mime lessons (I know... I know.... not many people like mimes) that is training on how to express oneself, to build confidence, gain communication skills. Its also a way to be involved in a group project working together as a team.

One can't help but realize that Meghan is a person that spent her lifetime with all its ups and downs and struggles in the performing arts and a very good example that perseverance and hard work does pay off. Who better than Meghan to be able to be the shining example? Who better than Meghan to be able to point out the pitfalls and the disappointments and encourage someone not to give up on a dream? Who better than Meghan to show young people that its all about giving back whether a comedian is rewarded with a laugh, a dramatist brings a heart warming to an audience or a painting captures the magnificence of a landscape?

So, in short, to answer Muriel's question, I would say it builds empowerment to express oneself.

 

[MARG]

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

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

I think the media forget that being a feminist is a lifestyle, not a hobby. There is an opportunity to advance the cause of women in just about every aspect of life.

I would imagine supporting art programs in schools or after school projects to offer an opportunity in the poorest or culturally different areas. Just a thought.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

You are correct, the Queen and her family must remain neutral in all things political, it is a major part of our constitution. It is not up to Meghan to come in and whip things up or change things, if she didn't know what she was getting in to she should have done her homework better. I am actually a bit fed up of Meghan losing her voice, being silenced, if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

[Dman]

Feminism isn’t political.

 

[Fijiro]

.

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.

this is so true -

 

[Osipi]

You are correct, the Queen and her family must remain neutral in all things political, it is a major part of our constitution. It is not up to Meghan to come in and whip things up or change things, if she didn't know what she was getting in to she should have done her homework better. I am actually a bit fed up of Meghan losing her voice, being silenced, if you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen.

I think Meghan knows very well that she's restricted on tackling issues and speaking out on them that are political in nature or divisive or controversial. She may not be able to speak out so much but the reality is that actions speak louder than words.

 

[wyevale]

Feminism isn’t political.

Wha ?????????????????

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Wha ?????????????????

While there can be political aspects involved, feminism at its core is just women’s rights and equality of the sexes-something many do not see as political but as a basic right of women.

 

[Pranter]

Feminism itself (equality and equal rights for women) is not political. However it is used by many as a political tool or in various political ways. IMO there is nothing worse than dealing with rabid feminists ...however I do not consider Meghan to be one of those, she's never behaved in that manner and seems very rational in her views of it.


LaRae

 

[Elenath]

IMO there is nothing worse than dealing with rabid feminists ...

IMO never is nothing worse that rabid anything.. it seems that lately though, with the metoo movement, etc, all women need to pay the price for a very small (loud) group of idiots.

 

[Osipi]

Meghan is just getting settled into her royal role and there's going to be trial and errors along the way. That's what happens when one is human. She'll be announcing some of her patronages soon and that, more or less, is what is going to define her role rather than any faux pas she may make.

 

[Jacknch]

Let's move on from discussing Protocols here, there is another thread where that topic can be discussed. In that regard, please also leave the rules of protocols for the Palace to decide upon.

 

[jacqui24]

Wha ?????????????????

How is equality of genders political? Especially this day and age in the western world? Most developed countries have equal rights laws in place in some form. The issue now is social norms and biases.

 

[Dman]

The Queen has been on the throne so long that what she does, what she wears and how she does things have been the "normal" for almost 67 years. We don't know any different. However, I'd be the last person to suggest that HM, The Queen would be so adamant that all her female family members that works as a team end up being MiniHMs.

There are certain protocols in place and they are there for a good reason. I don't believe, though, that its so restrictive that each lady must check off a list as she dons her attire for the day or can't wear something differently than HM does. Can you imagine any of them walking around in the Queen's wardrobe.

Its the uniqueness of Meghan that is her greatest appeal to the public and the last thing HM would want to do is stifle that or attempt to change and mold her into a duchess marionette.

Meghan is just getting settled into her royal role and there's going to be trial and errors along the way. That's what happens when one is human. She'll be announcing some of her patronages soon and that, more or less, is what is going to define her role rather than any faux pas she may make.

Right, but I hope folks will understand that The Queen comes from a different time and just used to doing things that reflect that time. Some things aren’t enforced on the royal ladies of today.

We gotta allow Meghan to not only carve out her own path, but let her be herself. The worst thing the public, media and Palace officials can do is try to place high unattainable standards on her shoulders or on any other senior royal. Judging from the past; it all leads to massive stress and disastrous outcomes.

 

[Pranter]

How is equality of genders political? Especially this day and age in the western world? Most developed countries have equal rights laws in place in some form. The issue now is social norms and biases.

It is used as a political tool by many.


LaRae

 

[Dman]

It is used as a political tool by many.


LaRae

Yeah, some, but Meghan won’t.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think anyone here has said she will.


LaRae

 

[DuchessMia]

Hopefully, the new year will bring the reveal of her patronages. I saw the other day that Angelina Jolie will be executive producing a BBC children’s show that will focus on education and empowerment worldwide. I wondered if Meghan could participate or contribute to the show since it will go outside of the UK to some Commonwealth countries.

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, I don't think we'll see Meghan with Angelina Jolie on TV. It would send the wrong idea that Meghan is still aiming for "celebrity" mode. That's my take on it anyways.

Rather than a television show, I expect Meghan's list to include charities and organizations of which she will become their patron and get involved with them.
Keeping it royal is going to be a mainstay for Meghan.

 

[Dman]

To be honest, I don't think we'll see Meghan with Angelina Jolie on TV. It would send the wrong idea that Meghan is still aiming for "celebrity" mode. That's my take on it anyways.

Rather than a television show, I expect Meghan's list to include charities and organizations of which she will become their patron and get involved with them.
Keeping it royal is going to be a mainstay for Meghan.

Well, The Countess of Wessex was just seen with Ms Jolie on an official engagement. The Cambridge’s had a meeting with her at their home at Kensington Palace. So I don’t think anything wrong if Meghan meets up with her at some point as well.

It’s just that people have to get over this thing about it being bad that an actress has become an actual senior royal.

 

[DuchessMia]

To be honest, I don't think we'll see Meghan with Angelina Jolie on TV. It would send the wrong idea that Meghan is still aiming for "celebrity" mode. That's my take on it anyways.

Rather than a television show, I expect Meghan's list to include charities and organizations of which she will become their patron and get involved with them.
Keeping it royal is going to be a mainstay for Meghan.

Angelina isn’t appearing in the show. She’s producing it. Her influence, like Meghan’s, would be behind the scenes.

 

[Osipi]

Ahhh.... I read your post too fast and got it all wrong it seems. Behind the scenes perhaps is a horse of a different color. I suppose it would have to be run up the flagpole with the Queen and TPTB to see if it was an acceptable thing for Meghan to do.

One thing that may stand in the way of approval though just might be that the program will have advertisements and British royals shy away from being connected to merchandising.

Then again, what do I know? My eyes are seeming to read things right even today.

 

[Britters]

Ahhh.... I read your post too fast and got it all wrong it seems. Behind the scenes perhaps is a horse of a different color. I suppose it would have to be run up the flagpole with the Queen and TPTB to see if it was an acceptable thing for Meghan to do.

One thing that may stand in the way of approval though just might be that the program will have advertisements and British royals shy away from being connected to merchandising.

Then again, what do I know? My eyes are seeming to read things right even today.

I would imagine the monies made off advertisements would be viewed similar to the monies made off the cookbook. It's all well and good because the direct proceeds would go to a charity or social cause. Or it could be stipulated as such, as the case may be.

I would imagine we'll hear about Meghan's choices in the end of January or early February. It'll be interesting, because they're likely to announce and have 6-8 weeks and then she'll be on maternity leave. I wonder how much behind the scenes there will be during the maternity leave time, to help her establish her place. Or will they wait until then perhaps?

 

[Pranter]

I guess it will depend too on how much maternity time she actually takes.


LaRae

 

[Britters]

My guess is that she'll go out similar to Catherine, this last year, mid-March, and we'll see her at Trouping, and then she'll come back full time, following the summer holiday. An April baby makes maternity leave Apr-Aug at minimum. And maybe ease back in. It's their first baby, I suspect they'll want some time to adjust and enjoy. But with new patronages, she'll probably be "working" and just make it behind the scenes.