Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Britters

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?

Given how close her due date is to the summer, it’s not like she’ll miss out much. She’s likely already had meetings with them this year and then she’ll do a visit before she goes off to maternity leave. Then she’ll be back after summer break is done. Royals do not make visits to their patronage THAT often.

[soapstar]

A number of posts and comments have been deleted. Let's also move on from the discussion about feminism. Thanks.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Given how close her due date is to the summer, it’s not like she’ll miss out much. She’s likely already had meetings with them this year and then she’ll do a visit before she goes off to maternity leave. Then she’ll be back after summer break is done. Royals do not make visits to their patronage THAT often.

So true.

Some charities get a visit once a decade or so.

Most of the senior royals have 100s of charities and, as my analysis shows, they don't visit them all every year and some have never been visited in the years that I have been doing this record keeping.

The Queen rarely visits any of her charities while the others visit some each year. Having their name listed on the page is the important thing or maybe having them write a letter or forward to some information being sent out as a fundraiser is all that is required.

[Dman]

Meghan Royal Patron of the National Theatre?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpression=true

Just waiting for the official confirmation on Meghan’s patronage’s. It’s the DM after all.

[Osipi]

Yeps. I'll wait for the official announcement too. The Fail is good at adding things up and coming up with the wrong answers like a 3rd grader doing 8th grade math.

I can see where they get the impression though because that thought occured to me when Meghan was thought to have a private meeting with the director of the National Theater back in December then there was the report of the Queen handing down more of her patronages to the younger royals.

I think its very possible but again, I'll wait for the official announcement like you are.

[Madame Verseau]

It would be wonderful if Meghan is announced as patron (Or is it patroness?) of the National Theater. I imagined some will claim she never did professional theater work but royals have taken patronages where they do not have direct experience. Being once an an actress Meghan understands the profession. I'll wait for the official announcement too.

[Pranter]

Well it makes sense...if she were to get that patronage. But who knows for sure...the DM is often wrong.


LaRae

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

It would be wonderful if Meghan is announced as patron (Or is it patroness?) of the National Theater. I imagined some will claim she never did professional theater work but royals have taken patronages where they do not have direct experience. Being once an an actress Meghan understands the profession. I'll wait for the official announcement too.

Having any practical link to a patrinage would seriously limit the scope of patronages. Meghan certainly has more connection to theater then any of the other royals who could take over.

It would be a great fit. But will wait to see.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

It would be a great fit. But will wait to see.

I think this is it in a nutshell. Who is the best fit. Reminded me of a passage in "Our Queen" by Robert Hardman where Andrew recalls the "Upheavals" involving hundreds of patronages following the deaths of Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother in 2002.

"Now that was a case where everyone sat around a table and lists of organizations were produced and you started thinking 'how do we cope with this particular change and who is going to do what, where and when?' How many organizations are we going to hold onto? How many are going to be relevant in the future?'"

I think it most likely will be the same process with the Queen's charities and organizations being handed down.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

It would be wonderful if Meghan is announced as patron (Or is it patroness?) of the National Theater. I imagined some will claim she never did professional theater work but royals have taken patronages where they do not have direct experience. Being once an an actress Meghan understands the profession. I'll wait for the official announcement too.

While Meghan may never have acted professionally in the theater, she acted quite a bit on stage as a child and as a teenager in lead roles in school productions. And she majored in theater and international relations at Northwestern University in Chicago.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

It doesn't matter that the head of the British monarchy is female (as others have mentioned), Great Britain and indeed most of the world is patriarchal in its traditions, practices, laws, etc. There's a reason why QE-I never married.

Also, in her former life, while the Duchess of Sussex was definitely outspoken about adopting rescue dogs, and advocating on behalf of women and young girls, she was not a huge 'political activist' in the sense of getting out on the front lines in public, picketing and marching. She did work in soup kitchens, participate in a USA Network campaign against racism, and she advocated in ways she could for those in need. However, the majority of her early adult life was spent building her career as an actor and nurturing a 7-year relationship with her first serious boyfriend (who eventually became her first husband).

Although Meghan had an early interest in possibly making a career in politics (that's why she majored in international relations), she always seemed more focused on making a difference for others in personal ways. Her advocacy has been passionate and idealistic, yet soft-spoken, never strident. Case in point is the USA Network campaign circa 2012.

I kinda miss this strong, gentle, outspoken young woman's frank and unrestricted voice in the world. I hope she will be able to continue lending her strength to important causes in ways that she can within the more constraining confines of the British royal family.

So far, Meghan seems to be picking her spots in a sound, respectable and thoughtful way (witness her brief comments at the Royal Foundation Forum last February, her work with the women of Hubb Community Kitchen, and the confident speeches she gave during the recent South Pacific tour).

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

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.

There's a difference between outside observers' commentary of all stripes (including tabloid media, academics, royal journalists, and admiring fans). Since it is a given that members of the royal family do not speak out on personal matters, much less controversial matters regarding adjusting to their role within the family, we do not happen to truly know what Meghan feels and thinks at the moment. I agree with those who say she had a good handle on what she was walking into. She's fully accepted by the powers-that-be within the royal family, and she has her husband's love and full support. That's key to her charting a successful course, while navigating complicated shoals and murky waters.

Meghan probably feels she can make more of an impact for important causes as the Duchess of Sussex. It's very early days yet.

[MaiaMia_53]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...its-royal-news

Hmm, first I heard about this. Is Suits season 8 not doing so well in the ratings? Are they that hard-up for Meghan to reappear as Rachel for a few minutes (for charity dollars)!

I doubt this will happen. I suppose the Mike and Rachel characters were huge draws on that series, and perhaps Patrick and Meghan departing left the casting dynamic missing something. I'm not sure about the viewership numbers though. I haven't yet seen any season 8 episodes.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Having any practical link to a patrinage would seriously limit the scope of patronages. Meghan certainly has more connection to theater then any of the other royals who could take over.

It would be a great fit. But will wait to see.

If not Meghan then IMO Edward would also be good choice considering his association with the theater.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...its-royal-news

Hmm, first I heard about this. Is Suits season 8 not doing so well in the ratings? Are they that hard-up for Meghan to reappear as Rachel for a few minutes (for charity dollars)!

I doubt this will happen. I suppose the Mike and Rachel characters were huge draws on that series, and perhaps Patrick and Meghan departing left the casting dynamic missing something. I'm not sure about the viewership numbers though. I haven't yet seen any season 8 episodes.

Not gonna happen so the tabloids can speculate as much as they want...

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Dman

Meghan Royal Patron of the National Theatre?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpression=true

Just waiting for the official confirmation on Meghan’s patronages. It’s the DM after all.

Quite right. I to will wait for official confirmation when and if and the announcement is made from Buckingham Palace. It's a nice thought and probably a nice fit but, we all know that if dreams had wings we could fly.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by TLLK

If not Meghan then IMO Edward would also be good choice considering his association with the theater.

Agreed, Edward is a great fit as well.

I have a feeling though it is such an important patronage they will want it to remain with a more senior Royal. When Charles is king, his brother will be much further down. For another 20-25 years Harry and Meghan will have much higher profile roles.

Even if she isn't announced patron soon doesn't mean it won't happen eventually. Possible the queen just hadn't giving up that patronage soon.

I hope we hear her first patronages soon either way.

[Pranter]

I wonder if they will wait until after she's had the baby to announce patronages.


LaRae

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Pranter

I wonder if they will wait until after she's had the baby to announce patronages.


LaRae

No, the first of her patronage’s should be announced very soon.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Chloep

Meghan and Kate were never going to have the same experience, that was clear from the beginning. All one needs to do is look back 15 years in the past, to see what lives these drastically different women lived and what choices they made that shaped who they were and are. These are two fundamentally different women, in fundamentally different situations, joining the family with fundamentally different levels of life experience, achievements and personal history.

One makes a wonderful Consort-to-be for William, the other a wonderful Duchess for Harry.

Yes, it is quite a shame that Meghan's and Harry's paths have not crossed earlier - I am sure she would have greatly appreciated a low key life in her newly wed phase. Maybe then she would have even been deemed worthy of a 'grace period' to acclimate to her new life - would have been quite lovely, yes. Alas, it wasn't so - and maybe it was just right for them anyway.

I am not so sure that Meghan would have appreciated a more low key life. Less criticism surely would have been appreciated but she was actively promoting herself pre-Harry, and again from the moment thrir engabement was announced, so living a low key life doesn't seem to be her priority at all. Having quiet, private moments next to a very public image is more what she seems to be aiming for.

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

I don't think it's possible for Meghan to keep a low profile, part of it is just based on who she is mixed-race, American. In addition Meghan became a full-time working royal the minute she and Harry got married and was expected to 'hit the ground running'; her first engagement was 3 days after her marriage. Kate had the luxury of easing into the role. Meghan has also already been assigned a couple of overseas tours the most recent one in Morocco attracted over 100 press/media (and from the reports I have seen almost half weren't British). She and Harry are strong relatable Ambassadors for the UK right now and it would be wise of the BRF and the UK to take advantage of that.

I don't think Meghan was expected to hit the ground running. She herself was the one to create that expectation. I don't think the firm would have complained had she not done as many engagements but took her time to really get to know her role a little more out of the public eye.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I am not so sure that Meghan would have appreciated a more low key life. Less criticism surely would have been appreciated but she was actively promoting herself pre-Harry, and again from the moment thrir engabement was announced, so living a low key life doesn't seem to be her priority at all. Having quiet, private moments next to a very public image is more what she seems to be aiming for.


I don't think Meghan was expected to hit the ground running. She herself was the one to create that expectation. I don't think the firm would have complained had she not done as many engagements but took her time to really get to know her role a little more out of the public eye.

Agreed, she herself set that expectation. The norm in the past has been for the new royal to take a few months, do a few joint engagements with the spouse, and ease into the routine. Meghan chose to bypass all that, which was her prerogative, but it was definitely not expected of her.

[Curryong]

Meghan did do joint engagements with Harry, all over the UK, during her engagement. I think there were about 24 of them. Harry wanted to show his fiancée the different parts of his homeland and Meghan was keen to see them. Why is that 'promoting herself'. Meghan was eager to work. And she took part in engagements in CHOGM week as well, so KP and BP must have judged that she would be fine. And she was.