The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Charities and Patronages

[Denville]

No, they haven't been banned but its been made cleaer that they dont work on behalf of the queen or the RF.. they can do what they like....

[Curryong]

Harry sends his congratulations to ex CoachCore apprentice, now employee, the first to complete that change.

https://mobile.twitter.com/WeAreCoac...25121710120960

[ACO]

The media have sent statement requests to many of the Sussexes' patronages. Some have issued no comments but others have spoken. Today in the Telegraph and Express we learned that the London Marathon, Rugby Association and the National Theater all would like to keep them as their patrons.

My question is -- how much sway do the organizations themselves have especially when it is related to patronages that typically have a working royal holding the position?

[katie.c]

Originally Posted by ACO

The media have sent statement requests to many of the Sussexes' patronages. Some have issued no comments but others have spoken. Today in the Telegraph and Express we learned that the London Marathon, Rugby Association and the National Theater all would like to keep them as their patrons.

My question is -- how much sway do the organizations themselves have especially when it is related to patronages that typically have a working royal holding the position?

I'm drawing a blank...has Meghan done anything with National Theater since they left the U.K.?

This is certainly putting HM and the Firm in a position they would probably prefer not to be in. Royal Patronages being held by non-working royals who aren't supposed to be actively identifying as working on HM's behalf...Yikes.

[Durham]

Yes but who from these organisations have replied? Have they consulted with their stakeholders or similar interested bodies?

Smacks of elites making unilateral decisions.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by ACO

The media have sent statement requests to many of the Sussexes' patronages. Some have issued no comments but others have spoken. Today in the Telegraph and Express we learned that the London Marathon, Rugby Association and the National Theater all would like to keep them as their patrons.

My question is -- how much sway do the organizations themselves have especially when it is related to patronages that typically have a working royal holding the position?

Originally Posted by Durham

Yes but who from these organisations have replied? Have they consulted with their stakeholders or similar interested bodies?

Smacks of elites making unilateral decisions.

As far as I can find on their websites, neither the Telegraph nor the Express have reported on the matter in detail, aside from quoting an anonymous source from one organization.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...al-patronages/

Buckingham Palace will bring forward its final “Megxit” announcement on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s royal patronages to prevent further speculation and uncertainty, The Telegraph understands.

[...]

While a source close to the couple indicated on Tuesday that they were reluctantly resigned to losing their links with organisations passed down through the Royal Family, they too were awaiting confirmation from the palace.

[...]

Discussions on those outstanding issues have been ongoing with Buckingham Palace in recent weeks.

[...]

The organisations involved have revealed that they had received no contact from Buckingham Palace about the predicted upheaval, which will have significant consequences for each of them.

They have each expressed a desire to maintain links with the Sussexes and privately, many voiced frustration that they had not been kept abreast of developments.

The Rugby Football League, which was expecting the Duke to be “front and centre” of its World Cup coverage in the autumn, said it was “very proud” Prince Harry had been the sport’s patron since 2016, adding: “The RFL has not received official correspondence relating to any changes at this time.”

[...]

The Sussexes will be allowed to keep private patronages such as the Invictus Games and WellChild for the Duke, and the Mayhew animal charity and Smart Works for the Duchess.

[...]

[Durham]

I'd be surprised if the average rugby fan cared at all who their patron was. I suspect most if asked would prefer a former rugby player or England captain.

I will ask some members of my extended family who are mad rugby fans.

[REAL COUNTESS]

Being a Patron in name only means nothing. Celebs do this so they get their name in the news again, because they are fading out. Unless you can spend time and money on the Foundation or organization, it is a flat zero. So many Celebs have done it, just to get a ray of light, and everyone else is in the same dire situation as before sadly.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by REAL COUNTESS

Being a Patron in name only means nothing. Celebs do this so they get their name in the news again, because they are fading out. Unless you can spend time and money on the Foundation or organization, it is a flat zero. So many Celebs have done it, just to get a ray of light, and everyone else is in the same dire situation as before sadly.

I doubt if the Rugby Association is in a dire situation...and as the couple are in the US, its limited what they can "do" for their patronages...

[Claire]

I think they will loose the patronages as its Royal Patron, but they will continue the work as its Patron.

A royal patron serves as a stand-in for the Queen. It should be noted that some charities like the National Theatre have many patrons - Dame Judi Dench for example. Will Meghan be okay to be the newest patron in a team of patrons?
There will also be problems with protocol at events - say for example at a Rugby World Cup. A royal patron allows the Queen to not have the problem of to send a representative as well - so say England and South Africa were in a final. The Queen would have to send William as her rep, Harry can come as patron but William will be the one sitting in the VIP box, next to the presidents and other royals. Harry will be somewhere else. And if she sends a lower ranked royal - Prince Edward or the Duke of Kent they will have a higher protocol at the event then Harry .

Otherwise saying it will create a protocol mess - but it is workable if the charities agree and the Sussex's accept the lost of importance.

[Pranter]

The Queen can have whomever she likes represent her. The person does not have to be a “royal” patron to do so at events.


LaRae

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Claire

I think they will loose the patronages as its Royal Patron, but they will continue the work as its Patron.

A royal patron serves as a stand-in for the Queen. It should be noted that some charities like the National Theatre have many patrons - Dame Judi Dench for example. Will Meghan be okay to be the newest patron in a team of patrons?
There will also be problems with protocol at events - say for example at a Rugby World Cup. A royal patron allows the Queen to not have the problem of to send a representative as well - so say England and South Africa were in a final. The Queen would have to send William as her rep, Harry can come as patron but William will be the one sitting in the VIP box, next to the presidents and other royals. Harry will be somewhere else. And if she sends a lower ranked royal - Prince Edward or the Duke of Kent they will have a higher protocol at the event then Harry .

Otherwise saying it will create a protocol mess - but it is workable if the charities agree and the Sussex's accept the lost of importance.

Sounds like a good & fair practical compromise. New royal patrons for the organisations the want one & the former royal patrons can remain in a new capacity as "honoury" patrons or some such. I wonder if this could be replicated in the military appointments?

[ACO]

Considering Harry and Meghan are mostly based oversees, I think that compromise could work if that is desired by all parties. If the National Theater wants to continue working with Meghan then she can simply just be another patron. The same with Harry's. I am sure it could work as I doubt any engagements will really clash.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Durham

I'd be surprised if the average rugby fan cared at all who their patron was. I suspect most if asked would prefer a former rugby player or England captain.

I will ask some members of my extended family who are mad rugby fans.

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.

[iceflower]

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Queen Elizabeth that they will not return as working members of The Royal Family:



** royaluk: Buckingham Palace statement on The Duke and Duchess of Sussex **

Published 19 February 2021

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Her Majesty The Queen that they will not be returning as working members of The Royal Family.

Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family.

While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family.

Notes to editors:

Following The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step away last year as working members of The Royal Family, a 12-month review was agreed.

A decision has now been made after conversations between The Duke of Sussex and Members of The Royal Family.

The military, Commonwealth and Charitable associations which will revert to The Queen are:

The Royal Marines, RAF Honington, Royal Navy Small Ships and Diving.

The Queen's Commonwealth Trust, The Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football League, The Royal National Theatre and The Association of Commonwealth Universities.

[sophie25]

Just read Harry and Meghan's statement and their little barbed reply to the mention of them not carrying out public service anymore in the BP statement. Meow!

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by iceflower

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Queen Elizabeth that they will not return as working members of The Royal Family:



** royaluk: Buckingham Palace statement on The Duke and Duchess of Sussex **

Thank you iceflower for the latest updates, official announcement and link!! It is great to hear from the Palace with official statement after several days of leaks and speculation from the press.

I’m not surprised by The Queen and Palace’s decision, especially given that Harry and Meghan are more likely to settle in America rather than the UK. It does make sense that the Charities patronages and military honorary titles will be re-assigned to other working royals who are representing The Queen and serving the country.

[Alison H]

I think a lot of hats would have been eaten if the announcement had said anything else. It was sensible to say that things would be reviewed after a year, to give them the option of coming back, but it soon became pretty clear that they weren't going to.


It's the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see who takes over all these things. All the senior royals have got a lot on already, and Harry was a good fit for both rugby codes and for the military/naval organisations.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Alison H

I think a lot of hats would have been eaten if the announcement had said anything else. It was sensible to say that things would be reviewed after a year, to give them the option of coming back, but it soon became pretty clear that they weren't going to.


It's the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see who takes over all these things. All the senior royals have got a lot on already, and Harry was a good fit for both rugby codes and for the military/naval organisations.

with Covid I did think that the queen might extend the time as life hasn't been normal for anyone in the past year.. but clearly she feels they're not wanting to come back, and its better to settle things... and make it clear that they are now out of the RF.. and that their work will be taken up by others...

[Alisa]

I'm actually surprised that it appears that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family appeared to be holding out hope that they would return.

My take on things...

1. The fact that they took such drastic actions as stepping back as senior royals in the first place meant they were not planning to come back to begin with. We all talked about the other options the couple had before taking such a drastic step.

2. The Sussexes have been financially successful in securing lucrative business deals on their own. In essence, they have achieved the financial independence that they desired at the onset. So mission accomplished.


3. While their statement about "service being universal " is 100% true- it came off as being snarky. One of those things that you can think but should never say.

I do hope that now that the decision is final the Sussexes and the Royal Family can mend whatever rift there is and have a peaceful and happy relationship. Life is too short for it to be otherwise.