Harry and Meghan 'are invited to appear on Buckingham Palace balcony at Queen's Platinum Jubilee'

[NarcissasMumintheDoghouse]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10729859/Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-invited-make-balcony-appearance-Jubilee.html

No source cited, so could just be made up news.

How do you all feel about this? Is it another refusing-to-fly-the-flag-at-half-mast-for-Diana misreading of the public mood? Does anybody actually care? And, if not, what does that signify?

Posters generally do not click on links, so a screenshot is just as well, especially when you can see and read without leaving MN.

How are the Yorks going to be stripped of Royal, that they never used in the first place. Also, as I said, the Kents represent the queen and do their own private things all the time. So let's just say they want to be like them then. You are also not addressing the fact that all these others are still HRH in their private endeavours.

Posters generally do not click on links, so a screenshot is just as well, especially when you can see and read without leaving MN.

I disagree. There's often no context, no date, no source.

How are the Yorks going to be stripped of Royal, that they never used in the first place.

My point is that the Sussexes wanted to use the 'Sussex royal' brand even after 'stepping back'. I've never heard of any 'York Royal' brand. So just one more way in which the Yorks' situation is totally different from the one the Sussexes demanded.

You are also not addressing the fact that all these others are still HRH in their private endeavours.

But they live in England. I believe that Bea went as plain 'Beatrice York' when she lived in the US.

Also, as I said, the Kents represent the queen and do their own private things all the time. So let's just say they want to be like them then.

So a completely different argument to the one you made?

Here’s the official announcement from the Palace about Meghan’s patronages. Two are “passed on” by the Queen - i.e. they are Royal. The other two are private, with organisations who have never previously had connection with the Royal family (The fact that Mayhew and the Duchess both recently claimed that her role as patron was only for a three year term is another clear indication that this is not a Royal patronage - they are long-term relationships).

“Her Majesty The Queen has passed on two patronages to The Duchess of Sussex –The National Theatre and The Association of Commonwealth Universities. The Queen has held the roles for 45 and 33 years respectively. Her Royal Highness will also take on Patronage of two additional charities as part of her official working portfolio – Smart Works and Mayhew“.

www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex-announces-patronages

That announcement means that the Queen passed on patronages that she held until that point.

The other two are also royal patronages; the language used is different solely because the Queen has never held them

All four were royal patronages, for as long as the holder was a working royal.

And yes, minor working royals had Royal patronages, for example Zara Phillips and CRUK

The other two are also royal patronages; the language used is different solely because the Queen has never held them

No, that's not correct.

If it had been the case, the patronages would have 'reverted to the crown' and been given to another royal, just like Harry's rugby patronage was passed on to Kate.

Meghan is no longer a working royal and still holds the Smartworks patronage. So clearly these are not official royal patronages.

If

The Yorks, were never stripped from using HRH, most certainly there was never even such an announcement. Some people still referred to them as such, without correction.
HRH has nothing to do with where you live.

Obviously, the York and Kents are the closest we can compare since H&W do not have any other siblings for us to compare to. My whole point was that they should have taken the same model as the Kents / Yorks, and came up with something close to it.
Fair enough, the Kents may be a closer model.

• they write private books under the HRH title


• they represent the crown


• they do their own work and own their own company

@EdithWeston on dit Thank you so much! I haven't read that expression since I read Georgette Heyer. You've made my day, and cheered me up, and I was feeling very low. I'm going to have to work out how to casually use it in conversation.

@EdithWeston There is a distinction being drawn here (or muddied, depending on your point of view ) between patronages offered to and held by many members of the Royal family at all levels because they are well known public figures, and those where the official patron of the charity is the monarch, but has been bestowed by her onto another, generally senior, working family member.

As a poster said upthread:

“The Yorks do represent the queen on occasion, especially on patronages”.

The Yorks hold patronages of charities, absolutely. And those charities and the press doubtless refer to them their “Royal Patrons”.. Because…they are members of the royal family…and the patron. That is not remotely the same as representing the Queen as the holder of one of the patronages to which the monarch herself was appointed. You simply can’t conclude that being patron of a charity = representing the Queen, as the poster was trying to do.

No, it doesn't work like that.

That's how royal titles can work (merge with the Crown until reassigned), but not Royal patronages. They're not things that the Crown owns and.

it is the charity that seeks the patron, and if Royal agrees, then they become the Royal patron.

If the Royal relinquishes (such as Princess Diana did) then they simply ceased to exist, and charities that wanted a new Royal patron sought one, or they appointed someone not Royal. They didn't have to wait and see what the Crown would do.

When Meghan ceased to be a Royal, the she could not continue as a Royal patron. But it is entirely up to charity is they wanted her to continue as a non-Royal patron, which some of them have asked her to to.

Patronages change over time, some (like Zara) only for a couple of years, others are life long (as I expect Princess Eugenie's Royal patronage of the Scoliosis Association to be

It’s also probably useful to clarify which of the Kents you are talking about, @notanotheroneagain The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra have been for most of their adult lives, senior working royals and paid for by the public purse.

Their younger brother Prince Michael has not. Over the course of his life he has attended a handful of foreign state funerals on behalf of the Queen and fairly regularly attends state dinners, but they seem more in the way of his being cousin to and personally close to the Queen - he has never been paid by the State. He and his wife are the ones I think you are referring to as writing books and running their own business? They are more the York sister variant of Royal family members - titled, close family, but not working Royals.

The Kents do a HUGE amount for the Queen, Harry and Meghan didn't want to do anything like this. They wanted the titles, the glory and fame but wanted to pursue their own financial arrangements with very little input in terms of working royals - and using the royal name to do what they wanted - Netflix etc - it was a non starter from the beginning. There is no way the Queen would ever agree to it, and the backlash from the public would have destroyed the RF.

@EdithWeston The RFU patronage actually disproves your statement. This page on their website confirms that when Prince Harry announced he was leaving, the royal patronage was handed back to the Queen. In 2022 the RFU then announced it had been given to Kate.

www.englandrugby.com/news/article/rfu-thanks-duke-of-sussexWhen

“The patronage, which has been given to The Duchess by Her Majesty The Queen, closely aligns with Her Royal Highness’ longstanding passion for sport and the lifelong benefits it can provide, both within our communities and on an individual level”.

www.englandrugby.com/news/article/duchess-of-cambridge-becomes-rfu-patron

Harry and Meghan made it clear they wouldn't even be living in the UK! They would be popping back occasionally. It was just the most ridiculous proposal from Harry at the very beginning. How can you have working senior royals living on the other side of the planet?! Of course H&M expected the rules to bend and be broken for them, but they had no chance. I think the biggest issue is going to be their finances, and how they continue to fund the lifestyle they envisaged. I can't see it happen, Harry will flog every last part of his soul and some, and it still even touch the sides. The expenses are many many millions a year and that is just the security and staff.

Harry did lots of charity engagements and set up Invictus

The operative word is 'did' in that statement.
He barely does anything now, as he had planned.

That's how royal titles can work (merge with the Crown until reassigned), but not Royal patronages. They're not things that the Crown owns

Well, if they're official royal patronages, they kind of do.

This is from the official announcement from BP last February.

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.

Also this.

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.

No mention of Smartworks or Mayhew. Because they are not royal patronages.

www.royal.uk/buckingham-palace-statement-duke-and-duchess-sussex

I am inclined to think the story quoted by the OP is not the case.

Prince Michael of Kent does not receive money from the purse, but he does work and represents HMQ, which is what H&M were proposing.
He has also received the graces another poster was alluding to. And yes, his wife writes her own private books using HRH - so it's not clear why H&M cannot use HRH.

1st post on the thread and I agree. He is a grandchild - loved by some/many/all accounts - so the invitation is the right thing to do. But yes he chooses (as a fully functioning adult) not to participate in the work/professional side which this is - so he should respectfully decline. The invite is to them jointly but as it is his family he gets final say. And it is fair enough for him to state "I have been invited however will not be able to attend. But my granny is the best etc etc" Job done. I don't see it playing out that way however.

Have they done many interviews as a couple since Oprah?

I seem to see Harry bumbling into stuff alone or maybe it’s just what the media reports on - I wonder if Meghan has deliberately taken a back seat or they are both concentrating on their respective solo projects?

Have either of them added any further comments or clarification to the family situation post Oprah? Are they still presenting as a united front on their decision and accusations or have they drawn a line under it having aired their grievance? Are they seeking an apology or acknowledgment of their experience and hurt?

Well… Harry has written a tell all book so there will be more shit to hit the fan.

They paid back Frogmore Cottage

They paid £2.4m which included eighteen months 'rent'. The full details of the arrangement and how much the 'rental' element comprises have unsurprisingly never been released but it's really not hard to sniff a PR rat.

uk.news.yahoo.com/harry-meghan-frogmore-cottage-renovation-230100732.html