The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Charities and Patronages

[tihkon2]

Well, thank goodness that's settled. I'm glad Harry and Meghan have no official roles in the Royal House anymore. I've found them to be whiny, annoying, with a tendency to be somewhat narcissistic. Their little dig at the end of their statement confirms that I don't like them. I don't begrudge them a good quality life in the States. And hope they and their children have long happy lives. I'm just thrilled I don't have to see them on the balcony of Buckingham Palace or at official functions anymore. Yay!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The writing has been on the wall for a long time, that H&M will not return as working royals. I am glad that QEII remained consistent in her decision, you want it, you get it, no special treatment.

I guess Harry expected this, but they cannot help sulking about it, as their statement shows. Of course they must have the last word, trying to correct the Queen's statement, very bad taste.
Now good luck with the likes of Oprah etc in Hollywood.

 

[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.

 

[Betsypaige]

That is a rather odd statement by the Sussexes. They have been officially removed from all miltary honorary appointments and official royal/Commonwealth patronages, but they are suggesting that, if those organizations from which they were officially severed want to continue to have them, they will be glad to keep serving or representing them? As if that would even be possible?


Should we conclude that they are not happy with the decision that was made about their future role?

Ooh, I don’t like that at all, but it’s not surprising from them; H and M have been trying to perfect passive-aggressive shade at BRF for a year now. Admitting I don’t know about how this all works, I don’t see how this is tenable at all - it’s just more half-in and half-out BS. HM is not going to allow H and M to keep “unofficially” supporting these organizations when working Royals already do.

 

[Lee-Z]

Not surprising and good that the decision is made and public (and indeed i wouldn't be surprised if it had to do with the announced interview that this has been published now)

H&M can go their own way (am going to ignore the snarky remark..if they are snarky in said interview, i'll reconsider )

i'm just disappointed for QEII thinking her life as a "senior royal" (heir to the throne) started when one family member chose his own preferences over the life in service to the country that imo the Queen herself so obviously values, and now, won't say "ends", is rounded of by another family member doing the same.
Ofcourse it's great that the family members can make their own choices if they want, and i'm pretty sure that HM would be the last person to want someone to feel sorry for her, but i do a bit...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Exactly. I think I have read the royals have over 3000 patronages.

When the new King took over in the Netherlands, he took the broomstick and swept the many, many patronages away. It was communicated as "he wants to be a King for all Dutch".

So no longer the Friesian Horse Studbook, no longer the Royal Zoologic Society Natura Artis Magistra, no longer the Young Christian Women's Association, no longer Unicef, no longer the Astrological Society, etc. etc. The many patronages were also a result of not wanting to say "no" but it paradoxically inflated a royal patronage: there were so many, it became a meaningless automatism.

The King took a rigid approach: only a handful patronages with a clear link to the Crown were maintained: the Orange Fund (the King's wedding present), the Praemium Erasmanianum (a sort of Nobel Prize financed by the Prince Bernhard Fund of which the King is Regent), the Netherlands' Nobility Society (logical connection with the Crown) and a few more.

It will come as a shock to some patronages but it will also reset and revamp to New Monarchy 2.0 under a King Charles or a King William. And importantly: it will free the royal agenda, completely plastered with engagements until in 2026 or so because the Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths will celebrate a jubilee in 2025 and the Shetland Pony Stud Book will festively unveil a new interactive website in 2022, etc.

 

[Alison H]

I'm sure the Queen will want to keep relations with Harry and Meghan as cordial as possible. Prince Philip's current stay in hospital is a reminder that no-one knows what's round the corner: if you're on bad terms with someone, you may never get the chance to put that right, and then you'll have to live with it for ever. But I could really have done without Harry and Meghan's snarky reply.

 

[tommy100]

Well this was inevitable, take out it being the Royal Family and the headline would be "couple who left UK to live in LA will no longer do their UK jobs" - hardly shocking.

IMO it is right - the RF is trying to mark a clear line between the Queen's family and "The Royal Family" and this is it - you can not work one day for Netflix and Spotify and other for HM doing "official duties". Simple.

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.

I like that the patronages are going back to HM as it is from her they all stem in the first place, which is something that sometimes seems to be overlooked.

A little bit of a sad day for all but in the long run a day of definition and clarity that has been much needed.

 

[Winnie]

[...]
Agree that it may well impact on George most.. as unlike his father he may not get some years of leading a fairly normal life, going to Uni, having an ordinary job etc....

Agree, but not earth shattering to a normal human. George will be raised properly as his Mother's parents will be a helpful grounding influence. jmo

 

[Mbruno]

Well this was inevitable, take out it being the Royal Family and the headline would be "couple who left UK to live in LA will no longer do their UK jobs" - hardly shocking.
.

I agree, but I would only note that technically they live in Santa Barbara, not in LA. The substance of your argument doesn't change though.

 

[Princess Luna]

Its not a big suprise at all, even though its sad. Wish them both a happy life in USA

 

[Alisa]

If it is a win-win situation, why are the Sussexes saying that they would like to continue to be involved with those patronages/organizations, even if it is in an unofficial role?


Again, as I said before, their statement suggests to me that they are not happy about losing their honorary appointments and official patronages and would gladly try to reverse that situation if possible. I would guess that is particularly true for Harry, especially regarding his military appointments.

Because it would not look good for the Sussexes if they dropped any involvement with their (former charities) like hot bread.
The press would destroy them. It was just recently the Daily Mail accused Harry of not having any contact with one of his patronages- fictitious lies of course. Harry successfully sued the Daily Mail and won!

 

[Fem]

Some observations: The queen only discussed with The Duke; the BRF keeps reminding people that the pair remain 'beloved members of the family' while H&M's statement only confirms that they are unfit for the role by diminishing the importance of the work and true life of service by the royals; and offers no 'branch' to heal the rift they created.

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.

 

[Osipi]

And that's that. Their "divorce" from the "Firm" is complete and over and done with. All "Firm" business that included the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has officially ended and the "accounts" belonging to the "Firm" have been returned to the "Boss", The Queen.

This doesn't have anything to do with being "Family". It's the business side of what the British Royal Family does. That's the big difference. A lot of people seem to feel that leaving the "Firm" is carried over into how they fit into the "Family". It just means that Harry and Meghan work independently at their own pace, support their own interests and make their own fame and fortune without connections to the "Firm".

The "Firm" will do OK and go on with business as usual. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have their own upcoming work mapped out and will follow that path. No problem.

 

[poppy7]

[...]

The Sussexes release was Snarky. A life of service indeed. They dont have one. That entails having a public service career. They are wealthy celebrity philanthropists. More Angelina Jolie than he Obama's etc though. Although Jolie has actually done quite a lot of charitable work but I have yet to see any actual philanthropy from the Sussexes. Not saying I wont though.

It actually sickens me to hear that statement. He was born to a life of service and he gave it up his choice of an adult but dont claim it now.

Also I have no time for their complaints about the media going forward. Any press presence will be cultivates and controlled and I have no time for future complaints when the press inevitably will be anti them at times.

 

[Kitty1224]

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

 

[poppy7]

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

What were they supposed to say? They were hardly going to say anything else. The Sussexes could learn a thing or two about grace from the people around them.

 

[Kitty1224]

What were they supposed to say? They were hardly going to say anything else. The Sussexes could learn a thing or two about grace from the people around them.

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.

 

[poppy7]

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.

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.

 

[irish_royalist]

I'm sure the Queen will want to keep relations with Harry and Meghan as cordial as possible. Prince Philip's current stay in hospital is a reminder that no-one knows what's round the corner: if you're on bad terms with someone, you may never get the chance to put that right, and then you'll have to live with it for ever. But I could really have done without Harry and Meghan's snarky reply.

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.

 

[Somebody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.