The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Charities and Patronages

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Sandy345

They are still part of the family but don't do royal duties and live in the US. I have a positive attitude about them, after all he is way down now in the line of succession and has virtually no chance of becoming monarch or close to being one.

He is one plane crash away from becoming the heir; while I very much hope not to see it happen, it is a small but real possibility. That's why I think it is quite problematic.

The royal family also clearly expressed their disappointment (as they've done consistently, while also always including a phrase about them remaining beloved family members).

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

I feel like you think there is supposed to be only one type of feelings. As humans we are complex and many of these patronages probably still wanted them since evidence shows they raised a lot of money for them.

You do realize that the charities and patronages that have been withdrawn from the Sussexes are those that specifically represent the Queen and the monarchy right? Royal patronages. The QCT (The Queen's Commonwealth Trust) of which The Queen is the actual patron had Harry and Meghan to work as it's President and Vice President. The other patronages were appointed to Harry and Meghan as they were working members of the "Firm". In a nutshell, it's like Harry and Meghan used to work for Microsoft but decided to leave to form their own software company. Everything that Harry and Meghan previously worked on for Microsoft would be ended. If they, during their time at Microsoft, also decided they'd back and promote a specific internet provider, that would be up to them to continue doing it as it had no relation to their work at Microsoft at all.

They are retaining the charities and patronages that they hold that are not "Firm" related such as SmartWorks, Mayhew, WellChild etc. Their individual passions that they supported outside of the "Firm".

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by tommy100

The Sussex's statement does IMO sound snarky, which is a shame. It sounds like the sort of thing we might all write then delete before publishing. It certainly gives a clear insight into their thinking over all of this. I'm sure they are hurting as they haven't been able to achieve the impossible dream they wanted but they are of course free to represent charities and organisations in their own right if that is what people want going forward. .

It sounds a bit like Tessy who also talks about being 'a princess of hearts' and 'everyone can be a princess'; while she herself never fails to mention that she is a 'former princess of Luxembourg' and 'mother of princes'. Along the same lines, the Mountbatten-Windsor couple uses the titles they got as royals (given as part of an expectation of a life of service to the crown) to raise their profile while stating that 'everyone can live a life of service'.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by poppy7

They didn't. Those patronages are not the type you make money for. They were all about representation. The royals make money for their charities and they are keeping their charities in a private capacity.

They wouldn't have said anything else however black and white or complex their feelings for them were.

Yes in particular those such as the Commonwealth Trust, Rugby Union etc..they're about the official representatives of HM and in some cases the British Government.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

It sounds a bit like Tessy who also talks about being 'a princess of hearts' and 'everyone can be a princess'; while she herself never fails to mention that she is a 'former princess of Luxembourg' and 'mother of princes'. Along the same lines, the Mountbatten-Windsor couple uses the titles they got as royals (given as part of an expectation of a life of service to the crown) to raise their profile while stating that 'everyone can live a life of service'.

Service is a rather vague word. At least in English, it is used very broadly in many contexts that are totally unrelated to any official public role, including in churches, schools, hospitals, or even private corporations. The meaning of "service" as used by the Palace and within the Royal Family is quite specific though and I am pretty sure the Sussexes understand it very well, which makes their statement even more puzzling to me.

[tommy100]

Exactly - they have not been told they can not do charity work or can't follow their passions. The Queen has taken back patronages she as head of state and head of the royal family gave them to represent her and the nation. Bear in mind for at least a few of the patronages, the National Theatre as one, the Queen gave them a patronage she herself actively held, of course now they have made clear they are leaving Windsor PLC the Queen asks for it to be returned so it stays in the company.

Harry and Meghan are still free to do all the good work and represent all the charities they want - just like other members of the Queen's family who aren't official working royals do. No one is stopping them nor saying they shouldn't do that at all. Harry can do all the good things he wants for the military - he just can't do it in a formal honory role reserves for those representing the Queen now he and Meghan have decided that is not the role they want. Likewise Meghan can do all the work she wants in the areas that interest her.

Good point TLLK that in some of these roles they would have to work with government officials, meet foreign officials etc and that adds an extra dynamic when you factor in the patron being able to go off live in another country and make commercial deals and ties.

We also don't know whether some of these organisations would prefer to have an "official working royal" with them - there are links with the Crown going back a long way for some.

Likewise it also means it is now clear that any patronages and causes the couple take on are their own and not associated or on behalf of the Crown and the Queen. This doesn't have to mean anything horrendously dodgy but causes of campaigns the government may not support or endorse or indeed links with underlying commercial connections. It isn't fair to allow confusion or grey areas, better to be clear and upfront and that can now happen.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Actually, Harry has been regarded as a brilliant patron of both Rugby codes. I've followed his activities there. He's known to be enthusiastic about the game, he knows many ex and current players, has reached out to some of them privately over the years, and is regarded fondly by the rugby league and rugby union organisations. I'm not surprised they want to keep him, especially for the Autumn celebrations.

Well yes indeed. Why would anyone think otherwise?

No one would dispute that & today's statement from the RFL confirms their appreciation of his involvement.

On the other hand there has been no official confirmation that the RFL does actually want to keep him. There was an unnamed source in The Telegraph as mentioned up thread but we don't know who that was, what position they hold in the RFL or if they had any authority to make such a remark on behalf of the organisation.

The Patron of Australian Rugby lives in Australia after all so by the same token it makes sense for the Home Nations patrons to live in the UK.

[TLLK]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Service is a rather vague word. At least in English, it is used very broadly in many contexts that are totally unrelated to any official public role, including in churches, schools, hospitals, or even private corporations. The meaning of "service" as used by the Palace and within the Royal Family is quite specific though and I am pretty sure the Sussexes understand it very well, which makes their statement even more puzzling to me.

Yes I agree that it is puzzling because I'm sure that Prince Harry would have been made perfectly clear what the word "service" entails to QEII and the BRF. She repeated the word "service" at least twice in her 21st birthday speech.


https://www.royal.uk/21st-birthday-speech-21-april-1947

I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Kitty1224

Sad because many of their patrons stated they want them to continue to work with them.

Is there a source for that because I can't find one? There was an unattributed comment in The Telegraph up thread about the RFL but nothing official.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Fem

It's the same thing that has been going since last year. TRF being graceful and kind to the Sussexes, emphasizing that they're still a beloved members of the family and the Sussexes being their snarky and entitled selves, because they didn't get completely everything that they wanted. Somehow not surprising to me at all.

Their leaving statement was undoubtedly impertinent & it would appear that they have not learnt any manners in the meantime.

Their closing remarks about service do come across as a direct riposte to the The Queen's assertion that in stepping back from the RF "it is not possible to continue with....... a life of public service".

The fact that they choose to be so brazen in their public contradiction of the monarch no longer surprises. Shameful that the duke would put his name to such a statement.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

All who hoped this inevitable severing could be completely without Harry taking shots at his 94-year-old grandmother across the Atlantic have now been sorely disappointed, but probably not surprised.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

From the Sussex’s statement from Chris Ship’s Twitter:

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Now statement from Harry and Meghan office: The couple “remain committed to their duty and service to the U.K. and around the world, and have offered their continued support to the organisations they have represented regardless of official role.”
11:06 PM · Feb 19, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Harry and Meghan add at the very end of their statement: “We can all live a life of service. Service is universal.”
11:06 PM · Feb 19, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisship...35325056032768

In really looking at Harry and Meghan's response to the loss of "royal" patronages that have been returned to the Queen and eliminates them from being "royally" and "officially" involved, I really can't state that I see it as being snarky and disrespectful to the Queen.

To me, what they're saying that even though they'll no longer be officially representatives of these patronages, they still believe in the causes and what they do to the point that they would still be "of service" to them regardless if it's official or not. In other words, because they're not "officially" involved any longer, it doesn't mean that they no longer care or wish to support what these patronages do.

They mean to continue on being "of service" where they can and how they can do it in a private capacity. It *is* true that any one of us could get involved with these patronages and support and back them as private individuals if we wanted to. I could support the QCT with donations if I pleased to. Same with the National Theater or any other "royal" patronage.

So, I'm on the other side of the fence and don't believe that statement was sent with a snarky intent to it.

But that's just me.

[Pranter]

You guys act like The Queen wrote that statement. I suspect it was the usual employees who have caused issues in the past. It is just more of the same.

[tommy100]

But what is wrong with the statement? It very much a statement of fact, yes its possibly a bit cold but then this is an "official" work issue not a family emotional issue that needs tonnes of emotional language around it.I think overanalysing either statement isn't worth anything - as I said earlier the Sussex's seems to have been written in the heat of the moment IMO and in a complete opposite the BP one written in pretty standard unemotive official speak.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by irish_royalist

I completely agree with this. The 'classy' thing to do would have been to continue to fully support the Royal Family while the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were alive. There will be huge changes after the current reign, and they could have made their lifestyle changes in line with that, when that happens.
And yes, their snarky reply has made me lose any respect for them.

I beg to differ. The couple were clearly miserable and unhappy with their positions and roles within the royal family. Instead of "suffering through it" they opted to leave. It didn't matter when during the reign of Queen Elizabeth or King Charles the couple would always suffer backlash for leaving "the firm".

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by tommy100

But what is wrong with the statement? It very much a statement of fact, yes its possibly a bit cold but then this is an "official" work issue not a family emotional issue that needs tonnes of emotional language around it.I think overanalysing either statement isn't worth anything - as I said earlier the Sussex's seems to have been written in the heat of the moment IMO and in a complete opposite the BP one written in pretty standard unemotive official speak.

You make a good point, Tommy. On one side, there is an official release from a "Firm" concerning the matter. On the other hand, a release from two people expressing themselves.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Pranter

You guys act like The Queen wrote that statement. I suspect it was the usual employees who have caused issues in the past. It is just more of the same.

I struggle to believe that the queen did not read and agree the statement before it was issued.

[BriarRose]

Originally Posted by poppy7

What were they supposed to say? They were hardly going to say anything else.

I was shocked to hear a co-worker say that the National Theater and others must have begged to keep the Sussexes, based on the public statements made. But I agree with Poppy7, I don't know what else the National Theater and others could say other than the gracious words they did. They all likely just wish they weren't in the middle of this. For that reason, I do wish the Sussexes could have been selfless enough to have resigned quietly. Today did not help these charities in any way. I would have cheered the Sussexes on for such class if they had done so.

Absolutely nothing is stopping the Sussexes from fundraising for these organizations. Only titles were removed (really, reverted back to the Queen), not anyone's ability to support and fundraise for these worthy and important causes. As someone who has volunteered for decades for charities, I've never had an appointed title of 'patron', royal or otherwise, and can't see needing such a thing. I hope the Sussexes understand that it is the cause, not the title, which matters.

I know Harry desperately wanted to keep the military appointments, but the military accomplishments that he personally earned remain his. I really do think that matters so much more. As someone who has often admired Harry's commitment to veterans, I never did so because of his royal appointments.

I'm surprised the statement mentions that the Queen discussed this only with Harry, but, it is Harry's position by birth in the monarchy through which these patronages flowed. Perhaps the Queen thought that it must then end solely through Harry as well.

[Kitty1224]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I beg to differ. The couple were clearly miserable and unhappy with their positions and roles within the royal family. Instead of "suffering through it" they opted to leave. It didn't matter when during the reign of Queen Elizabeth or King Charles the couple would always suffer backlash for leaving "the firm".

Yep! We live in a world where mental health is prevalent. Why stay at a place that makes you miserable?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I struggle to believe that the queen did not read and agree the statement before it was issued.

Of course she did, she was the one who had the talks with Harry, Charles and William....