If you couldn’t tell by now, everything coming out Buckingham Palace is half-assed. They could not get their stories straight about what Queen Elizabeth decided and when, when she spoke to Prince Harry, who initiated those conversations, and why everything seemed to be furiously thrown together over the course of last week, just after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s pregnancy announcement and Oprah interview reveal. As we heard last week, Buckingham Palace wasn’t even informing the Sussexes’ patronages that they were about to lose their patrons. The National Theatre – Meghan’s patronage – was kept in the dark and they were following the news reports like everyone else. Then journalists kept calling up National Theatre board members to ask them what they thought:
National Theatre board members were split over whether Meghan Markle should be forced to give up her patronage of the organisation, the Mirror understands. There had been “huge differences of opinion” around the decision, with board members divided as to if they should ask Meghan to stay on or accept a new royal patron, such as Prince Charles or the Duchess of Cornwall.
The role will now be handed to a new member of the family. A source told the Mirror: “There was great excitement when Meghan took over from the Queen but now it’s tinged with a great deal of sadness over her lack of action for the theatre and the industry as a whole which has suffered so greatly throughout the coronavirus crisis.”
The National Theatre tweeted: “The National Theatre is very grateful for the support offered by the Duchess of Sussex throughout the course of her patronage. The Duchess championed our work with communities and young people across the UK, and our mission to make theatre accessible to all. As Buckingham Palace have stated, the process of appointing a new patron is ongoing and will be announced in due course.”
That answers my question about whether or not the National Theatre could act independently and ask Meghan to stay on. They probably could have, but decided not to fight the Palace. And I don’t understand what Meghan was supposed to do? It’s a pandemic. People aren’t going to see live theater. Was Meghan supposed to cure the coronavirus? Anyway, the National Theatre likely decided to go along with the Palace’s decision because they were promised a new patron: the Duchess of Cambridge. Or maybe the Earl of Wessex.
Prince William and Kate Middleton may have to take on more royal duties after the Sussexes quit the Firm, it was claimed today. As part of the deal, Meghan lost two royal patronages given to her by the Queen in 2019 at the National Theatre and the Association of Commonwealth Universities., also giving up her role as vice-president of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust.
The Sunday Times today reported Kate Middleton is in the running to be the new National Theatre patron after former actress Meghan lost the role. The 39-year-old is already patron of the National Portrait Gallery and the V&A.
However, it was reported that the Earl of Wessex would be a more diplomatic choice for the position. Edward, 56, has previously worked for Lord Lloyd-Webber’s theatre company in the late 1980s. He also launched his own TV venture, Ardent Productions, a TV venture, in 1993 before it was ultimately closed in 2009.
It’s now being said that the Palace is leaning more towards Edward than Kate, which is pretty interesting. I wonder if the Palace is even in contact with the National Theatre about this? On one side, Edward would probably love the patronage and he would do tons of work around it. On the other side, Kate clearly wants it, but she would probably not be able to do anything to “solve” the pandemic and the crisis in live theater either. Plus, Kate is lazy as hell. I don’t know which way they’ll go!
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.
————————
Originally published at https://www.celebitchy.com/702450/duchess_kate_probably_wont_take_over_meghans_national_theatre_patronage/ on .