Thankfully the Sussexes are intelligent & recognize the importance of advocating for the marginalized as well as ribbon-cutting events. Whether it is opening a new youth centre that aids local citizens or highlighting diverse women, programmes & charities by guest editing Vogue; all can be used effectively to bring attention to significant causes & help many people.
Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities
- Thread starter soapstar
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
I hope we’re not suggesting the Sussexes are the only royals advocating for the marginalised.
Yes opening schools and planting trees is important but long before Meghan came on the scene royals were supporting causes like homelessness, addiction, maternal mental health etc. I could go on and on.
Yes opening schools and planting trees is important but long before Meghan came on the scene royals were supporting causes like homelessness, addiction, maternal mental health etc. I could go on and on.
Dman
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 15,827
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
Nope. She’s just doing her job and folks are harassing her for doing so.
Not sure if the other thread is the correct place for this response.
I don’t quite get this “Harry an Meghan will need to fill a void” when Charles is King blah blah that you so often trumpet around the forum. You make it seem as though the other working royals like the Gloucesters, Kents et al. will suddenly fall of the map if Charles does indeed get to ascend the throne. And what makes you so sure a future King Charles would willingly strip way or deprive existing royal patronages/charities of their current patrons? Aside from the bad optics, I believe he will be benevolent as head of his family, etc. plus take into account the raised profiles these charities gain from royal patronages - in addition to the hard work of these family members over the years who after all are similar in age to him. There is no reason to assume the current set-up in relation to this will not remain the same, including the usual standard tours abroad that working royals partake in, once Charles is King - unless you have concrete information to the contrary. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of royal patronages at stake and it is folly and perhaps a bit delusional to think the Sussexes and Cambridges can manage them all on there own.
Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, the U.K. is no longer a colonial power with outposts all over the shop. And the Sussexes can’t just be shipped off by others or decide themselves to plonker off to settle for long periods of time somewhere in the CW as active working royals. Aside from the optics on all sides which would in all probability prove problematic there will of course be the usual never-ending outrage/whinging from back home about taxpayer money being spent/wasted on the additional costs of extra security and home(s)that would be required. You don’t seriously expect the host Nation/s to foot the bill do you?
If the couple are feeling intense pressure at home from the usual sources/both from within and outside the establishment (and I wouldn’t say I’d blame them if they were feeling the strain because in all honesty so much of the unrelenting attacks and smears which just reeks of extreme cruelty and unfairness) - but to saunter off to live elsewhere for long or extended periods of time as active working royals in other sovereign Nations just because these countries are part of the CW is simply not the answer. Royals being stationed abroad in whatever capacity in another sovereign Country that does NOT have tq as it’s Head of State could potentially be seen as patronising if not offensive however well-intentioned the agenda, given the colonial history. And I believe it will be in Britain’s interest to be considerate of sensitivities and not try to downplay or disregard this.
Now I am not suggesting that the royal couple would be acting as pseudo governor generals in all but name under the guise of charity, animal conservation, activism and of course as part of their CW roles just so others can play pretend/toy empire back home, but still...
This “...William and his family to be the face at home (with Charles) and Harry and Meghan to be the ones out and abroad” is incredibly shortsighted at best. Of course, there is the option of working royals retiring completely from royal life/duties altogether and living elsewhere in a private capacity. They can then do whatever it is they want within reason; be it trying to make the world a “FANTASTIC” place and so long as they respect different cultures and ways of life plus abide by the laws of the land. And not merely serve as extensions or mouthpieces for those who pontificate on soapboxes back home about population control for a different continent when the preachers themselves already have more than the generally accepted standard whilst lecturing.
Interesting piece right here: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/23/...-andrews/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
And the report in this screenshot will forever make me roll my eyes as it kind of suggests some form of plotting behind the Sussexes back and the report seems authentic and credible enough given that the names of senior palace courtiers were actually listed :
I don’t quite get this “Harry an Meghan will need to fill a void” when Charles is King blah blah that you so often trumpet around the forum. You make it seem as though the other working royals like the Gloucesters, Kents et al. will suddenly fall of the map if Charles does indeed get to ascend the throne. And what makes you so sure a future King Charles would willingly strip way or deprive existing royal patronages/charities of their current patrons? Aside from the bad optics, I believe he will be benevolent as head of his family, etc. plus take into account the raised profiles these charities gain from royal patronages - in addition to the hard work of these family members over the years who after all are similar in age to him. There is no reason to assume the current set-up in relation to this will not remain the same, including the usual standard tours abroad that working royals partake in, once Charles is King - unless you have concrete information to the contrary. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of royal patronages at stake and it is folly and perhaps a bit delusional to think the Sussexes and Cambridges can manage them all on there own.
Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, the U.K. is no longer a colonial power with outposts all over the shop. And the Sussexes can’t just be shipped off by others or decide themselves to plonker off to settle for long periods of time somewhere in the CW as active working royals. Aside from the optics on all sides which would in all probability prove problematic there will of course be the usual never-ending outrage/whinging from back home about taxpayer money being spent/wasted on the additional costs of extra security and home(s)that would be required. You don’t seriously expect the host Nation/s to foot the bill do you?
If the couple are feeling intense pressure at home from the usual sources/both from within and outside the establishment (and I wouldn’t say I’d blame them if they were feeling the strain because in all honesty so much of the unrelenting attacks and smears which just reeks of extreme cruelty and unfairness) - but to saunter off to live elsewhere for long or extended periods of time as active working royals in other sovereign Nations just because these countries are part of the CW is simply not the answer. Royals being stationed abroad in whatever capacity in another sovereign Country that does NOT have tq as it’s Head of State could potentially be seen as patronising if not offensive however well-intentioned the agenda, given the colonial history. And I believe it will be in Britain’s interest to be considerate of sensitivities and not try to downplay or disregard this.
Now I am not suggesting that the royal couple would be acting as pseudo governor generals in all but name under the guise of charity, animal conservation, activism and of course as part of their CW roles just so others can play pretend/toy empire back home, but still...
This “...William and his family to be the face at home (with Charles) and Harry and Meghan to be the ones out and abroad” is incredibly shortsighted at best. Of course, there is the option of working royals retiring completely from royal life/duties altogether and living elsewhere in a private capacity. They can then do whatever it is they want within reason; be it trying to make the world a “FANTASTIC” place and so long as they respect different cultures and ways of life plus abide by the laws of the land. And not merely serve as extensions or mouthpieces for those who pontificate on soapboxes back home about population control for a different continent when the preachers themselves already have more than the generally accepted standard whilst lecturing.
Interesting piece right here: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/23/...-andrews/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
And the report in this screenshot will forever make me roll my eyes as it kind of suggests some form of plotting behind the Sussexes back and the report seems authentic and credible enough given that the names of senior palace courtiers were actually listed :
Last edited:
Sicne the Kents and Gloucesters are now a good deal older, it is reasonable to assume that by the time Charles is king.. they'll be wanting to retire. And Charles seems to want to cut down on the number of working royals and just keep it to his 2 sons and their wives...Harry and Will wont IMO take on as many patronages as was the case years ago.. and they will be kept busy with the royal work...
They fall within the same age bracket as Charles though and if he is able to continue working as a royal then so can they. I’ve already mentioned the bad optics and unfairness of depriving charities and patronages of their royal patrons in these desperate times. The underlying purpose of the monarchy in this day and age is to support those in need, otherwise what is the the point in sustaining an institution via “taxpayers” that some love to scream their heads off about, especially when it relates to all things Meghan? 
I know it could be argued that there is a constitutional aspect to monarchy. But justifying its financial upkeep would realistically be a lot more harder to convince people about without anything tangible/beneficial to demonstrate for its current existence. Having just two couples and a king handling the odd charity here and there is simply not enough justification. IMO
I know it could be argued that there is a constitutional aspect to monarchy. But justifying its financial upkeep would realistically be a lot more harder to convince people about without anything tangible/beneficial to demonstrate for its current existence. Having just two couples and a king handling the odd charity here and there is simply not enough justification. IMO
Last edited:
Just because Charles may well be able to continue working does not mean that his cousins can or wil want to. Most European monarchies only have the monarch and consort and thei heir and their consort, perfroming royal duties...They fall within the same age bracket as Charles though and if he is able to continue working as a royal then so can they. I’ve already mentioned the bad optics and unfairness of depriving charities and patronages of their royal patrons in these desperate times. The underlying purpose of the monarchy in this day and age is to support those in need, otherwise what is the the point in sustaining an institution via “taxpayers” that some love to scream their heads off about, especially when it relates to all things Meghan?
I know it could be argued that there is a constitutional aspect to monarchy. But justifying its financial upkeep would realistically be a lot more harder to convince people about without anything tangible/beneficial to demonstrate for its current existence. Having just two couples and a king handling the odd charity here and there is simply not enough justification. IMO
muriel
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2007
- Messages
- 14,565
- City
- London / Guildford
- Country
- United Kingdom
They fall within the same age bracket as Charles though and if he is able to continue working as a royal then so can they. I’ve already mentioned the bad optics and unfairness of depriving charities and patronages of their royal patrons in these desperate times. The underlying purpose of the monarchy in this day and age is to support those in need, otherwise what is the the point in sustaining an institution via “taxpayers” that some love to scream their heads off about, especially when it relates to all things Meghan?
I know it could be argued that there is a constitutional aspect to monarchy. But justifying its financial upkeep would realistically be a lot more harder to convince people about without anything tangible/beneficial to demonstrate for its current existence. Having just two couples and a king handling the odd charity here and there is simply not enough justification. IMO
I think the Duke of Kent has already slowed down The Gloucesters are about the same age as C&C, and I think will continue to work for the forseeable future. Similarly, Anne, Andrew, Edward and Sophie have a good few years left in them, and I have no doubt they will continue to support the monarch of the day.
You are right which makes it all the more fascinating that when Meghan does it she is met with absurdity from many as if she was the first to ever do it.
Make that make sense. She is no different than the others. That is the point.
But most other European monarchies do not have the same workload/ number of engagements that the BRF has.
Outside of QEII steadfast dedication, what impressed me most from the RF was Diana touching and hugging an AIDS patient. I think this action from a beautiful, aristocratic and famous woman, did as much to help AIDS awareness than just about anything. After watching those videos I could really feel Diana was in the moment and genuinely cared about these individuals. Not perfect, but when she was on duty with people in need Diana was a warrior princess without ego. I just felt it and think others felt it too. That's why her death was so mourned.
The difference with the Sussex couple, especially Meghan, is that her social outreach lacks sincerity. And please, there is nothing racists in my views (I have to put that in because if you don't like MM you are automatically a racist "sigh"). I think the Duchess of Sussex is and was using anything she could, her facile interest in women's issues, her choice of marriage partners, her acting, her current royal title, her blatant promotion of the businesses of her friends, to promote HERSELF. It is her single-minded determination to promote HERSELF, not the people of England or the RF, that has alienated the Sussex duo from the firm. I don't think she'll ever change and I don't see how the RF can use her to promote their causes.
The difference with the Sussex couple, especially Meghan, is that her social outreach lacks sincerity. And please, there is nothing racists in my views (I have to put that in because if you don't like MM you are automatically a racist "sigh"). I think the Duchess of Sussex is and was using anything she could, her facile interest in women's issues, her choice of marriage partners, her acting, her current royal title, her blatant promotion of the businesses of her friends, to promote HERSELF. It is her single-minded determination to promote HERSELF, not the people of England or the RF, that has alienated the Sussex duo from the firm. I don't think she'll ever change and I don't see how the RF can use her to promote their causes.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see you jumping from one Sussex thread to another, spouting venom, and making up false narratives that you cannot substantiate.
I'm not a tremendous fan of the Sussexes and I'm certainly not going to call all critics of theirs racists. However, I'd be very careful about jumping from thread to thread and repeating these kinds of things that are nothing more than opinion with little to back them up. While those critical of Meghan all have their own reasons for being critical and some do feel that she's insincere, jumping from thread to thread to spout Twitter-esque venom really isn't productive, allowed, or helpful.
duchessrachel
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 1,320
- City
- Birmingham
- Country
- United States
I agree with this. They all need to stay away from politically sensitive subjects.
What? What about Meghan's social outreach lacks sincerity? When has Meghan promoted herself?
Because I see the complete opposite. Everyone (charities) that has worked with her has said how kind, thoughtful and knowledgeable she has been. And that she has been to each place several times without public knowledge to truly understand the business (so it clearly isn't for publicity). It looks like she formed genuine friendships with the women of the Hub and Smartworks and is involved in the enrichment/improvement of UK citizen lives.
If she was really about herself she could have shown up for a day or two of work and been on the cover of Vogue and that would have been satisfactory, but instead, she above and beyond and spent 7 months working on the project (even while having a baby) and gave the cover opportunity to other women. Not to mention she promoted Smartworks and Luminary Bakery through that project through Vogue both of which support English women getting back on their feet. The only friend that she worked with directly when it comes to her projects is Misha Nonoo who is an English designer.
She was working with organizations that support women long before Harry and the additional notoriety came into the picture so I'm not sure how you can say that her actions are 'facile'.
I personally don't think Meghan needs to change, IMO in the first 1.5 years of marriage (and being a royal), she has done more than most royals brides. I hope she continues to spread her kindness and heart to those within the UK and Commonwealth....she is an asset to the BRF and the UK and shouldn't be taken for granted.
Last edited:
I totally agree about her self-promotion ways. Finally Hollywood people are paying attention to her that she didn't get as an actress. She is eating all up.
No, I am not a racist. I am Black and American. I wanted to root for her. But I don't like how she is managing her work as a royal.
The additional notoriety comes to all persons who are married to public figures, such as Royals, Heads of States, etc.; that is not self-promotion on the part of the spouses. So Meghan, Catherine, Camilla, etc. get more attention from everywhere because of whom they're married to. We pay attention to First Ladies who didn't even know before their spouses were elected. It is what it is.
Last edited:
Cocoasneeze
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,184
- City
- Somewhere in
- Country
- United Kingdom
She is promoting small grassroots charities, like Luminary bakery. This clothing capsule collection is to provide clothes for Smart Works charity. The Together cookbook was compiled to collect funds for Hubb community kitchen. Added many of the social media follows are small grassroots organizations, who all have got a huge boost in followers and interest through these follows. That all Meghan has managed in this short time being a royal. Plus the tours she has done to support the monarch, the 27 engagement visits she and Harry did even before they even were married.
None of us have to like Meghan, anything about her. But to claim, that the work she's done as a royal has been self serving and benefited only Meghan is just factually incorrect.
Dman
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 15,827
- City
- Midwest
- Country
- United States
Great and true post, right here.
Madame Verseau
Royal Highness
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1,783
- City
- Louisville
- Country
- United States
As long as Meghan and Harry are not breaking any laws I think their work is interesting. Smile, wave, look pretty and show no intellectual curiousity show dull and lack of sincerity. Thoroughly studying up on the issues and getting into the work show true engagement. As I said in a previous post Meghan is not lobbying Parliament to change laws; that's where it becomes political. And looking down on Hollywood is shortsighted given that having blueblood is not proof of great character. Can't wait until fall begins and the new engagements.
Last edited:
No, not at all. In fact I'm pretty ignorant of the terms used for fans, non-fans and all that. I've been researching all over the place, everywhere I can. I did this to finally educate myself on local politics and my research just spread all over. It became painfully clear that all is not usually what it seems and that really bad stuff is happening. I don't like reading or hearing bad things at all, but I can't ignore them either. I'll back off - sorry!
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
What I’m saying is that Meghan hasn’t really stopped working even while carrying a baby and taking care of the baby at home. Her focus has been on her work and royal duties the entire time — while others are focused on the petty stuff.
She haven’t gotten involved with politics and her guest editing Vogue was for her work, not out of self interest.
People abusing her because she’s a former actress and know some well known people is pretty much ridiculous. If people are going to come down on her for working with and knowing some celebrities, then let’s slam all other members of the family for doing the same. Yeah, lets slam her brother-in-law, father-in-law for working with celebrities for charities and begging to get them on board to support their patronage’s. Let not single Meghan out because she’s of her former experiences. Let’s slam them all and force them to drop every single celebrity from their friends list and their charitable donor list.
Let’s do that, please.
If I remember correctly Prince Charles has been criticized for many things before, so have every other member of the family. They either choose to learn from it or continue on the path they want. Meghan is not special, not everyone is against her or picking on her for being biracial. Things with her and Harry have been building, as I've stated before she seems to be 50% Royal and 50% celebrity when the latter needs to be turned down.
I'm pretty sure you know that the issue isn't just Meghan having famous friends, but to attempt to stop the conversation you will bring in other royals to distract from this issue.
Countessmeout
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Messages
- 13,104
- City
- alberta
- Country
- Canada
Well said
I see people saying she should go back to cutting ribbons and crossing bridges like a proper royal. I have to laugh as what royal has done just that in years??
I love how in her work to help women, she has worked with some great causes so far. Luminary Bakery, the Hubb Kitchen and Smart works all have a similar initiative. The empowering of women and how that builds not only a family but a community. And Hubb and Smart works so far we can see her take a real deep dive into it. I hope we see her with Luminary more in the future. The program not only teaches women to bake but also things like food hygeine, computers and money management. Skills and confidence these women who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, prison or victims of domestic abuse can use to get their life on track.
Too often she gets criticized and what she does is 'too Hollywood' yet there is nothing she has done which other royals havent done before her. Including being involved with a magazine (some modeled on the cover). She wears sunglasses, its 'too celebrity'.
King of the Jungle
Courtier
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2011
- Messages
- 981
- City
- Melbourne
- Country
- Australia
Most of what Harry and Meghan do is interesting and helpful.
The thing I notice that is different to the coverage of some other royals is the illuminated American media interest and interpretation. They are attracted to what Meghan does.
That will give the Sussex's charities some extra focus I think - and some extra critique.
There will always have people who like them and those who don't; they just need to keep working in an unselfish way. Continuity over time will earn respect for their work.
The thing I notice that is different to the coverage of some other royals is the illuminated American media interest and interpretation. They are attracted to what Meghan does.
That will give the Sussex's charities some extra focus I think - and some extra critique.
There will always have people who like them and those who don't; they just need to keep working in an unselfish way. Continuity over time will earn respect for their work.
XeniaCasaraghi
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,764
- City
- Texas
- Country
- United States
It's not just the who, it's the what when and how that's an issue for me. While Kate deals with the interest from other famous people Meghan seems to relish in it; she kind of reminds me of a brand new Sarah Ferguson in the early years of her marriage....before she went full on ridiculous.
I've defended Meghan especially against attacks because of her father...but she has done a few things that make me think she is relishing being on the A list now....and I fully accept it may just be me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,268
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
I'm going to paraphrase a very memorable quote here. To me, it reflects how I perceive Meghan and her role within the British royal family.
"Ask not what the monarchy can do for you but what can you do for the monarchy". This, to me, sums up Meghan's involvement in her incentives, her patronages and charities, her home life and her new family. Her efforts have been top notch. I can't say that she's been perfect or hasn't made a few gaffes or mistakes but then again, humans make mistakes.
Harry has had friends that have hit notoriety in the public eye. All the royal family has. Celebrity isn't something to look down at. Its a status that is attained through one's endeavors. Royalty is the same. They don't hide behind palace walls but get out there on the world stage and push to make a difference. However, both royalty and celebrity do not a person make. Their actions do. There are people in both categories that are fantastic people and do what they can to change their world for the better. There are also those in both categories that act and portray themselves as the greatest thing since sliced bread and are totally concerned about themselves and their image. Everyday, ordinary people fall into these categories too.
The BRF are humans just like everyone else albeit humans with high profiles, wealth, privilege and clout and are "known" to the world much like celebrities are. If a certain royal, such as Meghan, happened to have some friendships she made before Harry and they're classified as celebrities, that's not a bad thing. If Harry has a long standing friendship with a celebrity, that's not a bad thing either. If both royals and celebrities join forces for a certain incentive and it brings results, that's a blessing. If a royal and a celebrity are up to no good and its splashed all over, that is detrimental.
It all boils down to who the person really is whether royal, celebrity or Joe the Chimney Sweeper. We just hear more about the royals and the celebrities than old Joe so it draws more attention.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we can no longer stereotype people into categories such as royal or celebrity. Its a job description title and not a classification of their character as a human being. Even my hubby and I have our own "classification". We're two ornery old goats (Capricorns) and a dog living in the woods. BTW: us goats don't eat tin cans.
"Ask not what the monarchy can do for you but what can you do for the monarchy". This, to me, sums up Meghan's involvement in her incentives, her patronages and charities, her home life and her new family. Her efforts have been top notch. I can't say that she's been perfect or hasn't made a few gaffes or mistakes but then again, humans make mistakes.
Harry has had friends that have hit notoriety in the public eye. All the royal family has. Celebrity isn't something to look down at. Its a status that is attained through one's endeavors. Royalty is the same. They don't hide behind palace walls but get out there on the world stage and push to make a difference. However, both royalty and celebrity do not a person make. Their actions do. There are people in both categories that are fantastic people and do what they can to change their world for the better. There are also those in both categories that act and portray themselves as the greatest thing since sliced bread and are totally concerned about themselves and their image. Everyday, ordinary people fall into these categories too.
The BRF are humans just like everyone else albeit humans with high profiles, wealth, privilege and clout and are "known" to the world much like celebrities are. If a certain royal, such as Meghan, happened to have some friendships she made before Harry and they're classified as celebrities, that's not a bad thing. If Harry has a long standing friendship with a celebrity, that's not a bad thing either. If both royals and celebrities join forces for a certain incentive and it brings results, that's a blessing. If a royal and a celebrity are up to no good and its splashed all over, that is detrimental.
It all boils down to who the person really is whether royal, celebrity or Joe the Chimney Sweeper. We just hear more about the royals and the celebrities than old Joe so it draws more attention.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we can no longer stereotype people into categories such as royal or celebrity. Its a job description title and not a classification of their character as a human being. Even my hubby and I have our own "classification". We're two ornery old goats (Capricorns) and a dog living in the woods. BTW: us goats don't eat tin cans.
Cocoasneeze
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2016
- Messages
- 1,184
- City
- Somewhere in
- Country
- United Kingdom
I simply don't get why Meghan gets picked on for her friendships, famous friends or not, and honestly I don't get how anyone can say she acts differently with her friends than other royals. We never see them interact.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zaira
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,217
- City
- A
- Country
- United States
Yes...people like to conveniently forget that her closest friends are non celebs. The likes of Benita, Genevieve and Lindsay, to start, who were sat closest to Doria. Plus many others. And of those who are celebs, she has had years long relationships with, some decades even.
Royals have worked with celebrities to actuate their charitable goals for decades and decades. Meghan and Harry are no different in this regard from any other royal in the BRF of a high stature.
Honestly, the disdain people hold actors, singers, and other artists is really disturbing. I will never understand it.
Last edited by a moderator:
the same celebrities that are been viewed askance, are the same ones royals rely on for their fundraising activities for their charities. In these cases their money doesn't sink does it? You don't believe it, go ask the PoW about celebrities financial contribution to the Prince's Trust
Frankly I have more respect for the said celebrities who built their fortunes with hard work instead of those who expect privilege and respect because of accident of birth that put silver spoons in their mouth
MARG
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 10,612
- City
- Christchurch
- Country
- New Zealand
Very interesting point of view and, to be honest, one I hadn't thought a lot about.
Harry's involvement in Sentable has seen him compete in celebrity polo games as fundraisers since its inception. Those sponsored events draw crowds of well-heeled people that want to see the Sussexes and Cambridges play polo and socialise with them after the match. That means lots of handshakings and acknowledging the generosity of the sponsors, etc.
And so it has gone for all their fundraising endeavours throughout Harry's life. He and William became acquainted with a veritable slew of the showbusiness world as they moved in and out of their young lives working with their parents for fundraising for The Prince's Trust and Aids charities, etc. They have known Elton John and people like him all their lives. They have also known so-called serious performers like opera singers, dancers, oh and models.
If this is "Celebrity", they learnt it at their parent's knees. You can donate to a charity and yes, your $5 or $10 dollars is welcome but the BRF choose to broaden the scale of their charitable donations in terms of their time and energy and have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for work with unemployed youth, wounded veterans, veterans support, Aids research, education, general medical research, saving their heritage, etc. ad nauseum. All this did not happen in a pristine vacuum, it was and is 'people' driven. So while I think Meghan will become more "Royal" over time, the addition of Meghan has opened up a wider pool of "celebrities" to support their work.
ps: The Royal Variety Performance is the BRF's turn to pay them back as the proceeds go to aid and homes for elderly showbusiness people who are not millionaires but just as needy as anyone else.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
- Locked
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
"Wolf Hall" (2015) - BBC Two Historical Drama on The Tudors
- Latest: Hallo girl
