Thread 18?

[Froq]

I go away for the weekend and thread 17 disappears

March isn’t too far away now. Will we see their return for the commonwealth service?

Have they found a new home yet?

Will they make an appearance at Beatrice’s wedding?

Not just "the Duke and Duchess", repeated unnecessarily, but "The Duke and Duchess" with a capital T.

Pompous prats, the pair of them.

I’m not so sure how they or their supporters can spin that this is what they want or are happy with tbh.

I hope it works out for them.

Oof, the BBC article and the National Theatre patronage put on probation - they really don’t have any friends and goodwill left, do they?

I wonder if Americans can detect the giant snubs in the way those two pieces are written - that’s how you do passive aggressive the British way.
Megs needs to take notes.

The National Theatre haven't said anything.

The warning shot has been fired by a Nica Burns, who is highly successful producer and theatre owner, so someone very influential. But not someone who can speak for the NT.

But the general idea that if the new life means she cannot fulfil a worthwhile role as Patron, the organisation might seek a new one, is something she needs to heed.

I'd forgotten that she was 'given' this one dorectly by the Queen who stood down. It's an important one, and something that fits her background/interests. And the sort of thing that is routinely overlooked in the 'they were unwelcoming/unsupportive' narrative.

Winnie that’s why I consider it so subtle - plausible deniability, but this absolutely is sanctioned by someone higher up in the NT - as a warning to her.

If NT and MM had an okay relationship this wouldn’t be put in the papers - they would have come up with a joint statement that MM is voluntarily stepping down and they wish each other every success in the future (another excellent British parting shot).

I see what you mean, 7Worfs and if she deliberately made that statement it wouid be so.

Pout if she was caught by an unexpected question in the margins of some other event (and it doesn't say how she came to be speaking about this, or to whom) then it could also be

'Shouid M continue as patron?'
'Absolutely, but she'll need to find a way to put the time in"
'Even though she's not a senior royal by April'
'Perhaps that's when she should let them know how it'll work'

But either way, it shows an attitude among influential people in the theatre that she needs to show why she'll continue to be worth it. And they need to know early on.

However RF is giving them a review after a year. I doubt NT will be able to override that, even if they wouid like certainty much earlier. This article was about M, but does mean the clock will be ticking in terms of how they both show their ongoing worth as patrons.

Their PR people are being taught a very big lesson in 'you may know what goes on in the world of celebrity but when it comes to Royalty you don't have a clue'.

Harry and Meghan are very much being allowed to scupper themselves.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that anyone would struggle to carry out patronages if they are hardly going to be in the relevant country.

Assuming MM is not planning on being in the UK much.

Winnie it doesn’t go with the narrative so has been airbrushed out by their supporters. Time will tell.

The papers will be interesting this morning for sure!

Ouch! That BBC piece draws some pretty harsh parallels between Meghan and Wallace Simpson and finishes off with a pretty scornful Shakespearean quote targeted at Harry - I'm genuinely surprised they published that!

@Yehdivvy the reference to Shakespeare’s Henry IV in that link, is interesting

Part1; Act3; Scene2
And in that very line, Harry, standest thou,
For thou has lost thy princely privilege
With vile participation. Not an eye
But is aweary of thy common sight,
Save mine, which hath desired to see thee more,
Which now doth that I would not have it do,
Make blind itself with foolish tenderness.

Translated for those who don’t like Shakespeare

And that is where you currently stand, Harry. For you have lost your status as a prince by hanging out with vulgar people. There's not an eye in this world that isn't tired of seeing you. Except mine, which would like to see you more, yet now act against instructions, by filling with tears.

Oh cross post @caperberries I was surprised too even though it was slipped in right at the end

Delurking 18 threads in, to share a thought that occurred to me this morning...I wondered if part of the mishandling from the Sussex team has occurred because of a fundamental cultural misunderstanding.

I’ve long thought that as a nation we Brits do secretly ( & sometimes not so secretly) embrace a ruthless streak...our history supports that I feel. But equally I think, intrinsic to the average Brit’s enjoyment of life, there is tied up a desire not to (repeat mistakes from our colonial past and) have it good whilst others suffer. The average Brit doesn’t want their neighbour to be without/struggling for food or medicine etc - hence the social and healthcare systems we have. Our ruthlessness remains hidden and our “kindness” and “sense of what we view as FairPlay” is viewed from the outside as weakness...

Winnie agreed.
I pay extra attention when there is something concrete, but quite arbitrary, mentioned - a date, an amount of money etc - it does feel like something is communicated between parties.

Yes the BBC article is savage, but I imagine it would go over a lot of heads.

How patronising Worfs !

I think the patronising ship sailed with the earlier brief lesson on Shakespeare, peridito.

The brief lesson from Nanna50, I should have said.
Didn't mean to imply that was from you or 7Worfs.

I enjoyed the Shakespeare post. Different strokes 🤷🏻‍♀️
If one believes they are being patronised by a general comment about an article in the public domain, I’d say that’s one’s own issue.

I liked the Shakespeare post too

The BBC article reads as a (not so) thinly veiled warning to me.

LaM I don’t mind if you call me patronising, it’s a personal perception thing.
I made an observation, I am sure of the hundreds of thousands who read it some will not see the subtext.

If one believes they are being patronised by a general comment about an article in the public domain, I’d say that’s one’s own issue.

Fair enough.

I, personally, don't need Shakespearean quotations "translated" for me as I both understand and "like" his work. I see that that is my own issue and lots of people might like/require an explanation.

Anyway, I shan't steer any further off-topic.

I didn't feel patronised Worfs ,I thought you were being patronising .

7Worfs

LaM grin I don’t mind if you call me patronising, it’s a personal perception thing.

Okay, thanks. If ever I feel the need to, I will call you patronising without further ado.

I was just pointing out that the - in my opinion - patronising post to which I was was the Shakespearean one, not yours.

Now I'm slightly worried that I'm being patronising by feeling I need to explain a post that seemed very straightforward when I wrote it!

I didn’t feel patronised either. As an English graduate I rather enjoyed it.

"was referring was"