Prince Harry & Meghan won’t be able to use ‘Sussex Royal’ branding anymore?

Young Leaders Awards Ceremony

I have grown to have such a deep hatred for the pettiness, the short-sightedness and the hypocrisy of Queen Elizabeth and her bulls–t courtiers. Since Sussexit was first announced, it’s felt like the Queen and all her minions (plus Camp Cambridge) have been looking for any and all ways to punish the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Meghan and Harry had to stop using their HRHs. They had to pay back the Frogmore Cottage renovation costs. Harry had to give up his military patronages. The fact that they walked away with their ducal titles is still shocking, because you know these people are petty enough to strip Harry and Meghan of that too. But here’s something we probably should have expected: Harry and Meghan are no longer going to be allowed to use “Sussex Royal” anything.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex must drop their ‘Sussex Royal’ label after deciding to step down as working royals. Following lengthy and complex talks, the Queen and senior officials are believed to have agreed it is no longer tenable for the couple to keep the word ‘royal’ in their ‘branding’. Harry and Meghan have spent tens of thousands of pounds on a new Sussex Royal website to complement their hugely popular Instagram feed. They have also sought to register Sussex Royal as a global trademark for a range of items and activities, including clothing, stationery, books and teaching materials. In addition, they have taken steps to set up a new charitable organisation: Sussex Royal, The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

It has now been made clear that they will need to ‘re-brand’. The Mail understands that, amid what has been described as a ‘complex’ situation, the ‘fine detail’ is still being thrashed out. However, it is understood the couple have accepted that, as part of their new working arrangements, they will not be able to use the Sussex Royal name as they had hoped. The development is thought to represent a major blow to the Sussexes, who now face starting again and re-registering everything from their website to their charity under a new label.

As they secretly prepared for a new life in Canada, it was clear that Sussex Royal was at the forefront of Harry and Meghan’s plans. Dozens of trademark applications were made for everything from bandanas to notebooks – although sources have always stressed that these were preventative measures to protect the trademark from others, and never intended for commercial use. The couple also privately commissioned a new website. It went live last month to coincide with their bombshell announcement, with the introduction: ‘Welcome to the Sussex Royal community, your source for information on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.’

Such is the sensitivity around the issue, Buckingham Palace officials would not discuss the developments last night. A source told the Mail: ‘In many ways this is inevitable given their decision to step down, but it must surely come as a blow to the couple as they have invested everything into the Sussex Royal brand The Queen would have had little choice, however. The Sussexes’ original plan – of being half-in, half-out working royals – was never going to work. Obviously, as the Queen has made clear, they are still much-loved members of her family. But if they aren’t carrying out official duties and are now seeking other commercial opportunities, they simply cannot be allowed to market themselves as royals.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Becky English at the Daily Mail broke the story and she emphasized on Twitter that “it’s not something that anyone takes vindictive pleasure in” but “clearly HMQ/palace officials have a duty to protect the monarchy and H&M’s commmercial activities cannot be part of that.” This is asinine. First of all, Harry and Meghan are not going to shill SussexRoyal notebooks and tea cozies. They were trademarking all of that so no one else would do it in their name. The big thing was their use of SussexRoyal for their social media and charitable work. And they are STILL ROYAL. Wasn’t that the deal? They “volunteered” to “not use” their HRH status. But Harry is still PRINCE Harry. And Meghan is still royal by marriage, and the Duchess of Sussex. Again, this is asinine. Meanwhile, His Royal Highness Prince Andrew still gets to be styled as “royal.”

Anyway, if Harry and Meghan were having second thoughts about leaving this petty, small-minded, dumbass family, let their consciences be clear. Start over fresh and new in Canada and America. Re-brand themselves as Sussex Keen and let every new Instagram post cut like a knife towards those nasty-ass backstabbers.

Royal Ascot, Portrait of TRH Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and TRH Meghan the Duchess of Sussex in front of HRH Queen Elizabeth the Second

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

443 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan won’t be able to use ‘Sussex Royal’ branding anymore?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Aurora says:

    The royal family is beyond petty. Their actions have become more vindictive and punitive. You’d think the Sussexes were hanging out with pedophiles or something.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      Good one. I agree!

    • Royalwatcher says:

      Nah, clearly they’d still be welcome if they were friends with pedos, as Charles and Andrew are still protected and supported. Aside from Harry and Meghan, the family is trash.

    • Bros says:

      I don’t understand why they can’t use the word royal in general. I used to own a valet car parking company that was called Royal Park. There are royals and royalty all over the world and they dont own the word royal nor have a copyright on it. How they can prevent harry and megan from using a word that exists in english is beyond me. If i were them id launch my website sussex royal highness duke duchess royal royal high highness.com

      • Lexa says:

        I believe it’s because—in the UK—there are restrictions on how the word “royal” can be used commercially, which is the real issue.

        From the Robert Hardman piece in the DM: “For the definition of what is and what is not ‘royal’ is not just a matter of regal whim. The Queen is actually governed by several pieces of legislation, including the Trade Marks Act 1994 and even the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883.

        The Sussexes have not picked a fight with the Queen but with the law of the land.

        Since time immemorial, people have attempted to trade on royal connections, which is why there have long been strict rules governing everything from the use of the Royal Arms to the use of crowns on cereal packets.

        It is not a case of monarchs jealously guarding the perks of office, it is about protecting the public from fraud and misrepresentation.“

        I doubt people are worried about fraud and misrepresentation on the Sussex’s part, but I do think it’s tricky to make exceptions if the Sussexes plan to operate in even a partially commercial way in the UK. The counterpoint to that is that they’re still members of the royal family, even if they’re not working members, of course.

      • Regina D says:

        @ Lexa, that was what I thought, too. It’s not personal, but it has to do with legal issues and that crossing over between her majesty’s government and what’s done in her name.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Funny those ‘legal reasons’ didn’t stop Sarah Ferguson from publishing books for personal gain while she was still married to Andrew. Used HRH Duchess of York as her name on the books. Ditto Prince & Princess Michael of Kent, who use their royal titles and HRH in their commercial endeavours.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        @Lena, The RF is very vindictive, and insecure. Princess Michael of Kent, has been flogging her boring books, with HRH firmly, and shamelessly embossed on the books. Fergie, has also been cashing in on her hollow ducal title, selling tea and sundry, even though she’s been divorced for decades. There are no laws preventing people using the word,’ Royal’, here in England. The hrh is used by the non- working royal York’s sisters. If you tell me they are part time working royals, I will say, that is exactly what H&M wanted to do. This bloody goalposts keep moving all the time, just for The Sussexes. The Sussex Foundation, will be big, they will succeed beyond expectations. Infact most of us will arrange direct debit/ standing order, as soon as the foundation is launched.

      • Bettyrose says:

        I was wondering that too. They’re not in the UK so who dictates use of common words? I could call myself royal princess consuela betty bannanahammock if I wanted.

      • Lexa says:

        @Nota and @Abena The issue is the use of the word ROYAL as part of the name of an entity (Sussex Royal) that is likely to take part in commercial/business opportunities to support their charitable activity—that’s where the restrictions come in. I think Princess Michael gets away with using her HRH on her books because the effect there is limited—she’s not partnering with potentially problematic corporations, just her publisher (NOT saying the Sussexes would, just spitballing here). There’s probably some legal difference between the title “Her Royal Highness” and the word “Royal,” which would have different implications over the institution’s involvement in the entity’s activities?

        I don’t think Fergie is comparable—she is banking on her royal connections but she doesn’t use the word Royal in the name of her business endeavors?

      • Mns says:

        @notasugarhere If you are correct about your comment about Sarah Ferguson using HRH, legally Sarah is not HRH just Sarah, Duchess of York and should not have used HRH same as Diana, Princess of Wales post divorce. Unlike Diana and Sarah, Meghan and Harry kept the HRH but aren’t supposed to use it for commercial purposes or something like that was the story. If the Mail story is true, and I take all Mail stories with a grain of salt, then the Sussex Royal title is probably some negotiation on their part. Which seems really petty from the Queen, but who know. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before. As far as Princess Michael I hate when they are mentioned. Why waste any space on them. Aside from the fact on spectrum of bad royals they are overtly racist, they also are royals dying for relevancy. Why give them as they have so little fame to begin with any more.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        What about Royal Dalton China?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sarah used her full title, HRH The Duchess of York, to publish books for commercial gain in the first few years of marriage.

        Princess Michael of Kent not being problematic or not partnering with problematic people? In which universe. No one is monitoring how anyone else monetizes their HRH or royal connections, but even the suggestion of it about Harry and Meghan and suddenly? Everyone is up in arms and claiming to be legal experts.

      • Mns says:

        @ads no Andrew hasn’t been stripped of his title yet, but he isn’t supposed to monetize his royal status as an endorser either. Not that anyone would want him now. The Sussexes haven’t lost their title either. Theoretically, the issue with the Sussexes is can they use the British Monarchy brand or their brand made with the monarchy and monetize it for commercial or even policy endeavors. It’s definitely a slippery slope and Andrew and other royals have mucked it up too with some of their ventures. I personally think this isn’t the whole story. I mean if they really wanted to use Sussex Royal do you think the monarchy would sue. I kind of doubt it. They are self destructive just not that bad. I think once Harry realized he couldn’t negotiate the way he wanted, he decided to give it all up, and a total rebrand is actually a great idea. This would explain the abrupt removal of their staff too. Maybe they were waiting to see if they would need a UK staff, but this didn’t work out. Plus it will be exciting to see them with no ties to the old too. Good luck to them. Funny this is how I see a lot of Daily Mail stories, there may be some truth but it’s small and well hidden.

      • Jules says:

        @lexa, thanks for this information and your sane response. i’m getting tired of the drama around all this.

      • Mns says:

        @notasugarhere I looked it up and I can’t find Sarah using Her Royal Highness on any of her books at least after she divorced Andrew and left the monarchy. Also, Unlike H&M who still technically have HRH titles, the Queen did actually do something she stripped Sarah of her title. Granted it was cause she divorced Andrew but she did also leave royal life. It was a big deal back in the day especially with Diana who she stripped of HRH too. If there was an old book when Sarah was married to Andrew and still had her HRH title it was probably vetted by the monarchy. I get the issue though a social media platform like Sussex Royal built with money from British taxpayers and the monarchy and Charles may now be used as one of their sources of income. It’s better to just grand overhaul and rebrand.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        @BayTampaBay: The Royal Doulton with the hand painted periwinkles?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Mns – Is Prince Michael of Kent as bad as Princess Michael of Kent? For some reason, I had the feeling that Prince Michael of Kent was fairly well like within the family but I could very easily be wrong.

      • DM2 says:

        @ Lexa — it’s the same in Canada, too. The “Royal” designation in hundreds of our institutions and organisations were bestowed by the reigning monarch at the time — conferred by the monarch through the office of his/her viceroy, and must *not be a for-profit organisation*, as well as meeting other criteria. So that could be the distinction the BRF is making in M & H’s case, although personally, I still find it petty considering he *is* a Royal prince…but it seems they’re calling out the devil in the details.

      • jj says:

        Royal Doulton China was established in 1815 in England so before laws preventing the use of Royal. (I think?)

      • DM2 says:

        jj — it was called Doulton & Co. before being given it’s Royal designation in 1902. (I’m a china geek :) ) Canada’s first Royal designation was to McGill University in 1801 by George III, so it was well before 1815. However…what I don’t understand is…why was Royal Doulton (and Royal Albert china) given the Royal distinction when it wasn’t supposed to be bestowed upon a “for profit” organisation?

      • notasugarhere says:

        mns I’ve written repeatedly on here, Sarah wrote books with HRH The Duchess of York as her ‘author name’ while she was a working royal. Before the separation, before the divorce, using her HRH The Duchess of York title and making private money off it. It continued after the separation, but she started it before they were separated or divorced.

        As HRH Prince & Princess Michael of Kent do.

        The Queen didn’t strip Sarah of her HRH at first. She only did that after Diana’s divorce was final. Diana traded her HRH for more money, her lawyer admitted it. Then she found out she’d have to curtsy to Fergie who had retained her HRH after the divorce. Diana started all her lies about ‘the royals stole my HRH’, the Queen threw up her hands, and issued new Letters stating anyone who divorces out of the family loses the HRH. It retroactively applied to Fergie.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @DM2 – I am a china geek too. I collect pre-1970′s Franciscan Desert Rose.

      • jj says:

        DM2,
        Thank you for the info, I have a passion for china too , especially English.

    • Turm alin says:

      The timing is funny though. It can look like as an extra punishment for not attending AndyBaby’s 6th – sorry 60th – birthday party.

      • Anance says:

        Or, the Sussexes’ initial outings these months succeeded enormously and the BRF wants to take more away.

    • Jellybean says:

      I disagree on this one. I think they should not be able to use ‘Royal’ unless they are working under the direction of the Queen. They have not been stripped of their HRH, they are just not allowed to use it if they are not working for the Queen. If they want to go and do their own thing then that is their choice, but while they are doing it they don’t get to use ‘Royal’. That is what a monarchy is about, the head of the family is in charge, the ‘Royals’ work for her, if they don’t like it then go do something else but don’t expect to be able your use your Royal title or claim to speak for the Head of State. On the subject of Andrew, he should have no public role whatsoever unless he is prepared to cooperate fully with the police and is cleared of all wrong doing. The Queen is a fool to be photographed with him. We should do a straight swap with that American woman who knocked over and killed the young lad over here and is making a ridiculous claim of diplomatic immunity. They are both hiding behind the skirts of their governments and it shouldn’t be allowed.

      • C says:

        You’re 100% right.

      • ADS says:

        But, your other points about him aside, Andy is still okay to use ‘Royal’. Right, got it.

        What you are saying is just reinforcing the tropes that the British tabloid media have been pushing. They did not choose not to represent the Queen, they were hounded and hounded until they had no choice but to leave. You would not tell someone in an abusive relationship who finally found the strength to leave their partner that they had ‘chosen’ to leave would you? You would say good on you for getting the hell out. And you would not look for petty excuses to undermine them and make it impossible for them to live independently of their abuser. It is not right.

      • Sam Louise says:

        You’re right on all counts, Jellybean. Thanks! I know it’s not popular on here to say anything against M & H but sometimes it’s warranted.

      • Becks1 says:

        Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie are all HRH, even though (currently) none are working royals. Princess Michael of Kent SELLS BOOKS with “HRH princess Michael of kent” on the title. And no, they’re not cookbooks aimed at raising money for a good cause.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Becks1, so did Sarah while she was still married to Andrew. The first couple Budgie books where HRH Duchess of York as the author.

      • Jellybean says:

        ADS: If Andrew doesn’t have a public role then of course the Royal title should not be used, same as with Harry and Meghan. Not being able to use ‘Royal’ does not make it impossible for M&H to live independently; they are leaving with massive celebrity, countless doors open to them because of their Royal connections and millions in the bank. They will survive.
        BECKS1: Then that should all end too. I am hoping when Charles takes over that will be a feature of the slim-lined royal family we have been promised.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Jellybean, the point is, all of those others were allowed to do those things. The Queen never stopped them and she isn’t stopping them now. So all these posts stating ‘it isn’t allowed to happen’ appear like trolling.

        It has happened, it was allowed to happen, and has done for decades.

      • Jellybean says:

        Re Notasugarhere Fair point, I wasn’t aware of what the other minor Royals were up to. Maybe it is Charles’ influence that is changing things and if it is, good for him. It really is how I would like things to go forward. To be honest, I am right down the middle on the monarchy. If they do their charitable and diplomatic work work well and put the hours then I am ok with it, I can see the benefits to the country. If they turn things into a soap opera then I am not interested and if the negatives outweigh the benefits then they should go. It isn’t as though any of them are going to be destitute.

      • Tangie says:

        They should use Sussex Global like someone else mentioned. It ties back to the global baby shower where people donated to their patronages, it’s a good replacement word for Royal and of course shows their reach beyond the U.K. Even though it may suck for them to not use Sussex Royal, I have a feeling they already planned for that possibility and may have filed paperwork for Sussex Global. We shall see. Interesting issue though. I can see the argument either way.

      • Becks1 says:

        Ditto @Nota – its been allowed to happen before. there’s a difference between whether they “should” use it and whether they “can” use it. Honestly I don’t think they should use royal – make as clean a break as possible in that regard – and maybe there are legal reasons why they “cant” use it but those legal reasons don’t stop other royals.

      • Maria says:

        @jellybean. I agree, and I think it’s better that they rebrand. Put as much distance between them and the RF. They will still be a global brand, which is a better name and more in line with their plans anyway. Ok, they have to pay to rebrand but they don’t want to be caught down the road having to give the royal title up for whatever legal reason there is. And they are going to be on a global scale, which, let’s face it is mainly due to their royal association. I mean if they were Harry Jones and Meghan Smith, it wouldn’t hold as much attraction.

      • Mns says:

        Even though this isn’t about the HRH title it seems to have delved into it a bit. I see Sarah did write the children’s book Budgie the helicopter and a few historical books when she was married to Andrew and held that title. The reprints I found do not have HRH title but my guess is the old ones do. Well first at that time she was a senior working royal and I don’t think the monarchy would have had a problem if Meghan had done similar. According to the source of this info the Queen said Meghan could stay as a working actress while a royal. Also let’s admit, writing books, other than tell all’s, isn’t exactly the same thing as a social media platform selling yourself. Not that social media is bad just different. Not to mention this is more like a divorce of sorts with the royal family and post royal life seems a more fair comparison. Also, Andrew and Sarah’s commercial behavior is part of the reason the Queen may want to make sure everything is established on how this works. I know it’s hard for anyone to not think about anything but Andrews pedo history, but even without that knowledge he mixed things up for his own benefit and so did Sarah. Her books were her more respectable avenues. I think it’s the Sussexes who want to make sure this looks above board for everyone. I applaud them for it.

      • L4frimaire says:

        I love the Sussexes but I don’t think they are that surprised by this and they are aware this was happening once the HRH was iced. I think they would have to reset the goals and branding of their foundation regardless since they are no longer working Royals. What bothers the palace more is that they will actually be working, and their earning potential is what they afraid of. They think restricting Sussex Royal will restrict them, but not so sure of that. They’re not going to stop pursuing their goals and move back because of this.

      • Snappyfish says:

        I agree with Jellybean. While working for or on behalf of the Crown, SussexRoyal is perfectly fine. It’s the “doing it our own way” has conditions. As long as they are happy & doing what they wish the use of “Royal” is a moot point

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Also, Andrew and Sarah’s commercial behavior is part of the reason the Queen may want to make sure everything is established on how this works. ”

        @Mns – According to Lady Colin Campbell’s second book on Diana, there was a clause in Diana’s divorce settlement-agreement that she could not make money through any commercial activities and she could not “invoice” charities for expenses. For instance: charities could but her up at the Carlyle Hotel in New York and pay the hotel bill but she could not pay her own hotel bill then invoice them for expense reimbursement.

      • Deedee says:

        Agreed

      • Iroll@u says:

        Absolutely 100% they shouldn’t be able to use it. I’m shocked this wasn’t announced when this whole thing first happened. Of all the nonsense, this actually makes sense.

      • LadyAle says:

        100 % right.

    • Ok, I was going for SussexGlobal, but I could get behind SussexKeen. I understand another fly in the ointment is some guy in — I think — Australia, filed an injunction saying he had patented the term SussexRoyal. If the Sussexes can’t use it, I hope to God he uses it to market sex toys, etc. 😱😂🤯. Also, every one of them — including the Cambridge’s — has filed to protect various names etc., that’s just part of doing business. And why would the Queen be worried about them marketing notebooks and tea cozies when she already does that at her many gift shops attached to the various royal palaces. I mean just link to BP gift shop online and look at the tea towels, pillows, coloring books, and other various trinkets being sold under a royal roof. The gift shop online for Prince Charles’ Duchy products has a more upscale variety of products, but he’s still selling as the Prince of Wales. This is definitely punitive — I mean my gosh they pulled everything to do with the Sussexes from all the ROYAL gift shops within days of Harry getting on the plane to leave. Petty, vindictive, and just down right nasty — I don’t know how the Sussexes can stand to be in the same room as any of them.

      • Iris's Grandaughter says:

        @JA My guess is that the DDoS have already changed everything and informed QEII in January 2020. The information was held and then released in a timely fashion to be used as a distraction for:
        – 2 divorces
        – Pedo Andy’s birthday celebration
        – 1 FFQ (Princess Kate) eminent meltdown
        – All the ROSE BUSHES uniting against King William
        – Reinstalling The York Clan to FT Royals (including Fergie)
        And. It. Is. Working.

      • Mns says:

        Lol They are not going for Sussexkeen. The only ones who would get that are on here.

    • Tessa says:

      There are “tears” shed for “poor” Andrew not getting a big celebration for his birthday. Yet the Sussexes keep on getting trashed.

    • Loulalou says:

      Petty?? Harry and Meghan have stepped down as royals so they cannot use Sussex Royal as their brand. Seems logical to me.

      • Heather says:

        Agreed.
        Also, I doubt very much that the Queen, herself has a lot of say in any of this, anyway. She has very little say in anything, despite the fact that so many believe that she does.

      • Ohpioneer says:

        They stepped down as “ working royals” but they continue to be members of the royal family, hence they are “ royals”. TQ even said so. This entire article is nothing but speculation. The phrase “BELEIVED to have agreed” and “Understands that” clearly indicate that the DM does not have any facts in evidence. Personally if the DM told me they “believed “ it was sunny and they “understood” it was warm. I’d be 99% certain it was raining and cold.

      • baytampaBay says:

        The DM has no facts at hand as they refuse to allow pesky little facts to get in the way of a major click bait story.

  2. pivotta says:

    They haven’t paid back the Frogmore renos though? I’m not taking a position on that, I don’t really care either way, but it’s odd to word it like they have. They didn’t even strictly say they were going to, just that they were going to at some point work towards that.

    • HoyaLawya says:

      I don’t even understand why they have to pay them back when they don’t own the property. Seems like a benefit to the Queen that someone renovated it.

      • Livvers says:

        Yes, my understanding is that Harry and Meghan (Charles) paid the full cost of all ‘outfitting’ renos to Frogmore – decorating, appliances, etc. – while the necessary structural and building modernization repairs came from the queen’s budget. Now Harry and Meghan are being required to repay all the structural repairs too. When I first heard this, it sort of seemed like they were paying this in return for a sort of long-term family lease of the property — but even that doesn’t make sense, since I doubt the queen’s relatives like Prince Michael have to pay for roofing costs to Kensington Palace, just because she has granted them an apartment for life.

      • pivotta says:

        I’m curious where you see that they’re being required to repay it, though? Last info I can find says that “The mechanism by which they pay the money has yet to be worked out”, meaning no one’s even figured out how that would happen.

        I think there was also a separate idea they’ll pay a small rent on the property to the Crown Estate, but at this point I think they may have washed their hands of the notion of spending enough time in the UK to bother (who can blame them).

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “When I first heard this, it sort of seemed like they were paying this in return for a sort of long-term family lease of the property”

        @Livvers – I think what you stated is the exact deal. This is similar to the deal Andrew has on Royal Lodge.

      • YaGotMe says:

        Charles paid for the retrofit at Frogmore. If anyone needs to “repay” the structural repairs it should be Queenie since she gets grant money to maintain holdings and clearly didn’t.
        My guess is no one is going to repay that and it was weird lip service.

      • maximeducamp says:

        My understanding at the time when this all originally happened was that Harry & Meghan offered to pay for the renovations–not that it was a condittion placed upon them by the queen–presumably to shut up the naysayers who were complaining about it.

    • Guest with Cat says:

      It’s insane. The haters want them to pay for their own security and to “pay back” the Frogmore costs but screech like harpies at everything they’re doing to try and earn money and become viable as self sustaining philanthropists.

      I think perhaps it was Harry who made the offer to pay back the renovation costs of Frogmore. At the time when he thought his perfectly reasonable compromise of carrying out royal duties on his own dime would be accepted, he was also trying to make a good faith effort to assuage ALL complaints that had been levied against him and Meghan in the tabloids and supported by racist haters in the public. And the loudest complaint, besides their use of private jets, was the cost to the taxpayers of the Frogmore renovation.

      But it was a horribly unfair complaint. A general policy on the maintenance of royal property was weaponized against them.

      I really feel for them in that they undertook significant expense to renovate a property they likely now will rarely get to enjoy. And it’s not like they can sell it and get their investment back.

      Furthermore, I have often wondered, given the comments that have been made by Daily Mail snarkers and the history of the house itself, if assigning the property to them wasn’t in itself a sneaky slap against the American divorcee. It was last used as servants quarters and is under the flight path of a noisy airport. It was hardly a friendly environment for new baby. I live under the flight path of a small airpark. It sucks. And I’ve had low flying commercial jets go over my house a few times for some reason. You really can’t sound proof against THAT! I wonder how much they actually enjoyed living there.

      • pivotta says:

        I mean, first off, it was housing for staff, not “servants”.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        From my research, I have determined that Frogmore Cottage was one nose-hair away from being a derelict uninhabitable property. I think QEII assigned the property to the Sussexes so she had an excuse to renovate the property at Crown expense for some future use that had nothing to do with Meghan & Harry. This is just my theory.

      • Bella says:

        Hi, Kaiser,. Hi, all. First-time commenter here.

        According to the papers submitted by their solicitors to the court in their case v the Mail on Sunday, the Sussexes chose Frogmore Cottage themselves. They were offered a choice between a huge apartment in Kensington Palace (similar in size to the Cambridges’) and Frogmore Cottage. They chose the latter because the renovation was already under way and it would be ready before Archie’s birth. The KP apartment was still tenanted, so the renovation hadn’t even started and incidentally, was projected to cost about twice as much. (Info via Byline Times’ Brian Cathcart.)
        In addition, I imagine that the greater degree of privacy that FC afforded was attractive to them. I doubt whether either of H&M are bothered by the size of their house in relation to that of other royals’.
        Paying back the cost of renovation would be grossly unfair – the Queen is under a legal duty to maintain the Crown Estate land and buildings using the Sovereign Grant funds – which do not come from taxpayers, by the way! So I hope the mechanism settled on *is* some sort of lease for a substantial length of time. £2.4 million for a 50 or 60-year lease would be fair in my opinion. It’s not a commercial rent, but there is no way Frogmore Cottage would be let to anyone anyway. Their use of it would then have legal protection against the whim of a future monarch, they would get some use out of the fixtures, fittings and furniture they bought and the Queen would be fulfilling her function as trustee of a Crown Estate property by getting some profit for it. Over-delivering, in fact.

      • Noodle says:

        @Bella, welcome, and thank you for doing the research on Frogmore through the legal filings. I enjoy artifacts, as they provide support and evidence that conjecture does not. Great work!

      • pivote says:

        Actual facts! Bella, we love to see it, please stick around.

      • What. . .now? says:

        @Bella — oh nice work! Great explanation, too. Much appreciated, and hope that you decide to stick around!

    • I don’t know why the public is all fired up about this. It’s not as if the expense came directly from the government to the Sussexes. The press has really ramped this up into something it is not and the average British taxpayer seems to have drunk the kool aid. It was paid for by the Queen. However it is repaid it will not be repaid to the taxpayers, the repayment will go back to the Queen — again to spend how she wants. Maybe she’ll build an extra wing on Royal Lodge where Andrew lives — it is for her to decide.). The structural renovation costs made to a Crown owned property were paid out of the Queen’s sovereign grant. (The Queen is entitled by law to determine how this money is spent once it is turned over to her.). The SG is a negotiated percentage of money that the government returns to the Queen every year from money’s paid to the government by the Crown. ( This complicated set up was worked out years ago when the Queen agreed to pay taxes.). The SG is specifically for the Queen to pay for upkeep, maintenance, renovation to Crown property and other necessary ‘household’ expenses. The Queen chose to spend part of that money on structural repairs and renovation to Frogmore. It was not a liveable, single-family home when she offered it to the Sussexes to live in (as her wedding gift). Not one of the many royal family or staff or retired staff have ever had to pay for that sort of thing on Crown property. (Many of them now have to pay rent based on a Crown/government agreement several years ago.) They are just ‘renters’ and can never own that property. I admire the Sussexes for agreeing to figure out a way to repay the Queen for her unlikeable wedding gift to them. It just makes me mad that the Firm could put out a statement directly — bypassing the spin the press puts on this — explaining exactly why the Sussexes should not have to repay, but as usual they seem to like anything that tears down the Sussexes to be allowed.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I don’t know why the public is all fired up about this.”

        There are comments posted at the Daily Fail that Meghan left the UK with 10 million dollars worth of couture, three or four ancient tiaras which she planned to break apart and re-set to her liking, eight place settings of George III silverware stolen from BP and a large suitcase stuffed with a million pounds worth of bank notes or currency.

        I am not making this up. The above comments were actually posted BTL of several Daily Fail articles and to my knowledge not deleted by the Daily Fail comment moderator.

      • MsIam says:

        $10 million worth of couture? Place settings? I’m more convinced than ever that the bulk of these comments are coming from the writers at the Daily Fail themselves, and or that Russian troll farm that Trump and the republicans used during the election. And the clothing thing is really crazy, if they are clothes bought for her what would it benefit to leave them behind? Couture means custom so who would wear that stuff? The queen? Pretty sure she and Meghan don’t wear the same size, lol.

  3. HoyaLawya says:

    I feel like the only reason they kept their ducal titles was because Charles didn’t want his kid to have to bow to his siblings kids.

    This is so petty but they shouldn’t have even used anything that could have given these petty fools any toehold to complain. I think Sussex Global would be much better because it emphasizes how inconsequential the royals have gotten on the world stage.

    • pivotta says:

      “Sussex Global” would have been bloody brilliant and sort of worked to make it seem beneficial to everyone. “Here we are, not just in the UK, spreading out the charity and resources”, etc.

    • 10KTurtle says:

      “Sussex Global” is a great idea!

    • pineapple says:

      OOOOOOOOh, Sussex Global, that is great.

    • OzJennifer says:

      I love Sussex Global! I hope they use it (or something similar).

      • Sam says:

        I hope they don’t have Sussex in any of their foundation name or Instagram because that would be the next thing people would complain about.Just call it Harry and Meghan foundation and find something else to use for Instagram

      • pivotta says:

        Exactly Sam, it’s not like people don’t know who Harry and Meghan are.

    • LaraK says:

      Yeah but I think that’s because the kids wouldn’t bow anyway. Like, who’s going to make them??
      The only solution is to not see them so as to save face, which means total family meltdown. Which might happen anyway.
      Reality is, the only pressure the Queen has on them is purely Has no legal levers other than to take their funding, and I think they know that’s coming.
      The whole thing is so petty and small.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      Sussex Global: f’ing BRILLIANT! Are you listening, Meg and Harry?

    • LaraK says:

      Love Sussex Global too!

    • lily says:

      “The Harry and Meghan Foundation” sounds so much better. Everyone knows their name and it provides distance from the monarchy.
      Maybe even “The Harry and Meghan Global Foundation”.
      I believe Sussex Global is already a trademarked company, but the concept of H&M going global is great. I can see both of them getting with the UN in different ways with gender violence, education advocacy, protection of human rights such as the right to clean water which Meghan has experience with.

      • Guest with Cat says:

        With the petition going around among the people of Sussex to have them stripped of even their ducal titles, and knowing that yes, the Queen is petty af, they should not depend on the Sussex name at all. We don’t know how much more ugly this could get down the line. Who knows what nastiness could blow up behind the scenes when Harry returns to the UK for the Commonwealth celebrations. (I’m not sure Meghan confirmed her attendance).

      • Emily says:

        Is Sussex Foundation taken? Using their first names is too informal and part of their power is the Royal connection.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Guest with Cat, that was one random submission from a local Republican. It wasn’t to strip them of their titles, but to require the local council not to use them if they visited. The same thing has been proposed for other royals in other local councils.

      • Jane'sWastedTalent says:

        I agree, Emily. And I think understatement of ‘Sussex Foundation’ makes it much more powerful.

    • KellyRyan says:

      Sussex Global, great idea. They applied for a UK Trademark for Royal Sussex. Anyone know how this affects international protection and use. I hope H&M apply for trademarks in the US. UK has no legal authority in America.

    • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

      H&M Global has a nice ring. They should basically give “Sussex’ back to TQ on a platter and tell her where she can “display” it. I don’t care what is put out there, this IS petty and vindictive; as others above had said, using “royal connections” hasn’t stopped her grandson for trading on it (complete with a shot of what’s supposed to look like him drinking it in BP!) with Chinese milk and selling HIS wedding pics to HELLO (and I don’t give a shit that he’s not “titled”, he’s Anne’s SON for Godsake!), Bea and Eug get to use HRH and THEY don’t “work” for the firm! And that Bitchy PMichael of the Racist Brooches uses it to sell books, Freeloader to sell her books and such. Hell, even Charles sells all of his Duchy Products.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Anne’s son is not royal, has no titles, and receives no tax money. He’s free to do whatever he wants, even tacky commercials. So everyone, please get off his back.

        But the others . . . , yes they abuse and capitalize on their royal status all the time. The disparate treatment of Harry and Meghan is glaringly obvious.

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        Mrs Krabapple, you’re missing the point. The ad Peter did actually SAYS this:

        “In the TV ad, Phillips raises the glass of milk and says: “This is what I drink”, before the ad ends with a caption that reads: “British royal family member, Peter Phillips.””

        He is TOTALLY cashing in on it.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Peter also lives rent-free in Anne’s estate, fixed up and secured with taxpayer money. He sold his wedding photos to Hello, which embarrassed the queen. And he profiteered off the Jubilee Lunch.

      • baytampaBay says:

        If Anne chooses to allow her son to live rent free on her personal property then it is her business.

        YES! Gatcombe Park the country residence of Anne, Princess Royal between the villages of Minchinhampton and Avening in Gloucestershire, England is HER PERSONAL PROPERTY.

        It is also my understanding that The pictures were sold to Hello! because Anne refused to financially contribution to the wedding as she felt it was the responsibility of the bride’s family. However, I could be wrong on this one.

        ETA: @nota – my comment is not personally directed to you in anyway.

      • Snap Happy says:

        @tampa if Anne really did that then that is a di@k move by her. What I read is Autumn’s family were working class people. Anne has plenty of money.

    • Moneypenny says:

      Yes, Sussex Global is the name I had also thought of. I looked to see if the domain was available when they first stepped back and it was already taken. I really hope they are the ones who own it!

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    TBH this was expected given that they are not officially part of the family business any more and it sounds like the Sussex’s themselves are fine with it. It also gives them more freedom to brand themselves in any way they see fit – do they even want to brand themselves like that??

    I have a feeling they will create a brand around their foundation, others have done this. The Gates foundation is a good example.

    Personally I don’t see this as a negative for both parties – its also a step to protect themselves from others in the family from trying to jump on the bandwagon just cause they are doing things under a ‘royal’ brand name. And the BRF has always been very strict about using any royal associations to make money – the Middleton’s have gotten their wrists slapped a few times for trying to pull one.

    • Alissa says:

      yeah, if they don’t want to be working royals anymore then why should they use Sussex Royal has their brand? why would they want to?

      • Col says:

        Arrogance. Anyway the laws governing copyright and usage of the royal name go back to the 1800′s and are beyond just the scope of the queen. It’s not petty, it had to be done. They said they won’t trade of there titles but refer to themselves as “Their Royal Highnesses.”

      • Becks1 says:

        No, they specifically said they would no longer use their HRH titles, even though being an HRH is not tied to being a FT working royal (ahem, Beatrice and Eugenie.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        Col, as pointed out repeatedly. There are working royals use HRH for their private money-making. Fergie in the first few years of marriage to Andrew, HRH P&P Michael of Kent who are half-in-half-out,

      • Lizzie says:

        Harry was royal the day he was born and he will be royal the day he dies.

        I’m sure they have been expecting this pettiness and plans are in place.
        But hey, here is a cute baby pic of HRH pedo. Wonder how much security is spent on security for him?

      • Blu says:

        You’re correct

  5. Jedi says:

    I seriously hope this is just more bull from the Fail, so I’ll believe this when I see the Sussexes change their website and Insta. God it makes the Royals look so moronic. If it’s not true, someone should be leaking from the palace quick AF that it’s wrong because this makes the family look horrible.

    Live your best lives away from the toxic assholes, Sussex family!

  6. hoopjumper says:

    They’re too classy for this, but it’s getting to the point where I want them to do something really forking crass (actually sell tea cozies, reality TV show “Giving Up Sussex”, whatever) just to stick it to these aholes.

    • Sophie says:

      I really want Harry to just say f—k it and spill the tea on everyone in that awful family.

    • Guest with Cat says:

      Lol! Unfortunately nothing could top Charles making Katy Perry an Asian goodwill ambassador or whatever it was. Talk about tacky.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        Katy Perry as British Asian Ambassador to Asia, is an insult to all British Asians who could have been appointed. Charles, like most of his ilk, are out of touch. Katy Perry is not only not British she is also not Asian, for christ sakes! Sussex Global Foundation will be brilliant, it has a nice ring to it. Go: SGF!

  7. 10KTurtle says:

    This shouldn’t be unexpected. The Queen/Firm has always been strict about not profiting from royal status. I think it’s just another sign that Harry and Meghan didn’t not think this through thoroughly enough at all. I understand their urgency, but they should have anticipated that keeping both “Sussex” and “Royal” was never a sure thing (I’m not confident QEII won’t yank Sussex too). That should have been negotiated in advance.
    P.S. Andrew sucks 4EVA and if I could post pictures here I would post *that* pic every time. Never forget his arm around Virginia!

    • pineapple says:

      ” .. not profiting from royal status?????” Isn’t Charles’ Dutchy worth hundreds of millions, a billion? All these humans do is PROFIT from being Royal. The Queen is an a#s.

      • Royalwatcher says:

        This, Pineapple!! I mean, aside from Charles, we just saw how Peter is profiting from his royal connections, not to mention the brooch-wearing racist and other royals. It only seems to be a problem for Harry and Meghan. I wonder why?!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @pineapple – This is what I do not get. Charles has a complete product line from the Highgrove estate called “Duchy Originals”. Maybe the name “Ducky Originals” is owned by the Ducky of Cornwall and not Charles personally.

      • bamaborn says:

        @Pineapple…”not profiting from royal…” made me spit my coffee. There really are a lot of gullible people on this earth!

      • Guest with Cat says:

        I wish I could upvote this comment, @pineapple.

        Everyone in that family has profited off of being royal or royal adjacent. They and their supporters are absolute hypocrites to go clutching their pearls now because Harry and Meghan are poised to do it better. That is actually where the problem is. They’re jealous and fearful of being outshone by the outcasts.

      • mac says:

        The duchy was formed 700 years ago to provide income for the Prince of Wales. It also employs thousands of people. Charles has been an effective steward of the duchy, but who knows what will happen when William takes over.

      • Dee says:

        Better turn in those Land Rovers they get on the cheap.. And Kate should stop taking photos that are used and sold to the papers. And those Royal Warrant holders should stop.

    • pivotta says:

      I’m also wondering if the Sussex part will disappear.

    • Sid says:

      Not profiting from royal status? You mean like racist Princess Michael does? Or like Fergie’s tacky self still does even though she is legally no longer royal? Or like the whole freaking family does? Can’t change the game now.

    • GuestWho says:

      “The Queen/Firm has always been strict about not profiting from royal status. ”

      Except when she’s not.

      • Bella says:

        This is the point, IMO – it’s correct that it is not the Queen’s decision to prohibit use of the word “royal”, but the regulations are clearly not being consistently enforced. “Duchess” is supposedly one of the words which need permission and Fergie is nonetheless doing her branded sales thing!

        Incidentally, but importantly, the profits from Duchy Originals products go to PofW’s charities – see his website.

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        Bella, stands to reason sales of Sussex Royal items would go to their Foundation/Charities as well, wouldn’t it? I would think H&M might pull a salary from the Foundation, but the bulk of their income would come from PERSONAL ventures (speaking events, etc).

      • Lainey pointed out that at least one photo used in The Daily Mail calendar of the Cambridge children, was a copyrighted photo taken by Kate. Lainey noted that the photo had been released for a very limited time and press use and that that date had expired. She then stated that the Cambridge’s would have had to personally approve the Daily Mail being allowed to use it with other ‘public domain’ photos of the Cambridge children used in the calendar. So, what was the reimbursement agreement between the Daily Mail and House Cambridge? Or did the Cambridge’s just ok it’s usage because they love the Daily Mail? The royals just profit under the table, without any press attention, or pitch it in another country. Point is, every single one of the royals profit off their royal status. Harry and Meghan will be fine without the word, Royal — is it’s just the hypocrisy of it all that bothers me. Do what we say, not what we do. The Sussexes seem to constantly be dealing with being tested like the Salem Witch Trial test: Throw her in the water — if she floats, she’s a witch and we hang her, if she drowns, she’s not. It’s a no-win scenario.

    • GuestOne says:

      I don’t have an issue with this if true. Drop Sussex& Royal& don’t give the complainers fuel. I do think Queen is playing to the gallery around decisions re Sussexit as too many inconsistencies compared to treatment of other family members in similar positions.

      Firstly whole concept of monarchy is people profiting of their status including the Queen& Prince Charles being some of the biggest landowners in the country. They didn’t work for this did they.

      In terms of commercial activities Prince Charles just opened a bed and breakfast. Yes Duchy businesses funds his work& family but also goes towards personal fortune. Prince Andrew was likely getting a cut of profits from the charity Pitch and was using his trade envoy position to make lucrative connections.

      Non working royals DO profit from association with royalty too. See Princess Michael of Kent with books branded with her HRH& Fergie launching her Duchess Inc business. Wonder when they will get on her case?

      British artist Dave called out the double standards in treatment between Kate and Meghan at the Brit awards last night (as well as calling the prime minister racist) & we’ve had recent news of Andrew partying with yet another alleged rapist in time for his birthday so of course this news (which apparently isn’t finalised yet) is leaked to distract.

      Do yourself a favour and look at Royal family’s twitter& ANDREW’s birthday post. Hilarious replies. The family are SO out of touch

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        It came out Pedo WAS skimming a great deal of a percentage off his Pitch deals. He was also directing a “fee” to his personal accounts for selling GOVERNMENT INFO & CRAFTING DEALS in his favor. THIS IS KNOW! He had to step down as Trade Ambassador because of it. YET…. Pedo gets away with it, AND KEPT the money!

      • Yes, The OG —. What I love about the pitch@palace BS was the last conference (about a month before he did tv interview) took place in Australia. The media reported that only ONE CONFERENCE ATTENDEE SHOWED UP. Everyone else there was Andrew’s team, press, or conference organizers. That story got buried PDQ. I remember it because I’d never heard of the initiative and the article referenced how much it had cost to fly Andrew and his team there and how he had to have first class accommodations etc., and yet nobody attended conference. There is a photo with his arm around ‘A’ conference attendee, but according to reporter it was a photo with the ‘ONLY’ conference attendee. Other press reports by RR labeled the conference a success. 🤔

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @JA LowcountryLady – I think both The Daily Fail and The Guardian ran a version of that story.

    • 10KTurtle says:

      Okay everybody, maybe I should have said “not BLATANTLY profiting from royal status, like branding yourself ROYAL after you publicly stated you don’t want to participate in royal duties any more.” With the possible exception of Charles, all of those people you mentioned (and several more of them) have faced public & private repercussions for deals they’ve made, and I think there are more complicated issues with Charles because the Duchy of Cornwall is meant to fund the heir to the British throne (regardless of our opinions on whether that is acceptable). Harry and Meghan are in a tough spot, unprecedented, and they’re being grossly outplayed.

      • Maria says:

        So Peter Phillips’s milk ads aren’t blatantly profiting from royal status? He doesn’t even have a title to walk away from. Princess Michael?

      • 10KTurtle says:

        No, he isn’t. What do you want Peter to do? Go back in time and never be born to a woman who is a daughter of a queen? Be unemployed forever? He’s not out trademarking “Royal Peter” [teehee] but he does have to earn income. This paradox is one of the biggest problems with a monarchy- you don’t want your tax dollars to fund them, but you don’t want them to make any money on their own because any income they get is only paid to them because of their bloodline (or their spouse). There is no platform for the people near or even not-so-near to the monarch to make a living without the constant shadow of the crown making it look shady. I’m rooting hard for Harry and Meghan but they should have been better prepared for this.
        Edited to add: As LaraK mentions somewhere below, QEII doesn’t own the word “royal.” Why should H&M have to change anything? What can anybody do about it if they keep using “Sussex Royal?” I’m interested to hear what the British legal professionals think. Are there businesses in England called “Ye Olde Royal Pub” and stuff like that getting sued by the Crown?

      • Maria says:

        Stop. Sarah Ferguson is allowed to trade off her FORMER royal status – Princess Michael publishes books with her HRH – Peter’s milk ad which literally said IN THE AD “British Royal Family member Peter Phillips”- these things are all allowed because the Queen allows it. And if she wanted to let them keep Sussex Royal, she would.
        Harry and Meghan are making the same argument you are making for Peter. They want to earn their income. Instead of being worked with, they are vilified. How should they have been “better prepared for this”? The paradox you mentioned has been VICIOUSLY applied to Harry and Meghan, because of racism and trolls. They wanted to move beyond that with some global work with Sussex Royal and all of a sudden they’re “not prepared”? They TRIED to be, and people wouldn’t meet with them.
        Your edit is weird because your argument is bolstering why they “shouldn’t be allowed to use it” – you yourself said “There is no platform for the people near or even not-so-near to the monarch to make a living without the constant shadow of the crown making it look shady”. So which is it?

      • Regina D says:

        Peter Phillips doesn’t have a title. Although he’s the Queen’s grandson, he’s not part of The Firm. He and Autumn both have done controversial things, like Peter’s milk ad, and selling their wedding pictures, etc. Each time they’ve been loudly criticized and I’m sure the Queen privately “has a word,” but since Peter is outside the family business he gets away with things that Eugenie and Bea couldn’t ever do.

        Andrew should be ashamed of hiding behind the Queen! He needs to find a cave or monastery to hide in!

      • Maria says:

        And, Regina D? Princess Michael has an HRH which she uses freely to market her books. Technically that makes her part of the firm in a way Peter Phillips isn’t.

      • GuestWho says:

        Peter absolutely was profiting off his royal status – I don’t recall the exact wording (and I don’t care enough to look it up) – but that milk ad refered to him as part of the british royal family.

      • 10KTurtle says:

        @Maria- that’s why it’s a paradox!

      • Erinn says:

        I’m really only here to say that he needs to get out there and TM “Royal Peter” because that’s actually hilarious.

      • GuestOne says:

        As I said I have no issue with dropping it whilst acknowledging there are inconsistencies.

        They didn’t use sussex royal after Sussexit. SussexRoyal launched in April 2019 when they WERE working royals& trademarks (like ones the Cambridges, Prince Charles etc have filed) were done when they were working royals.

        According to their website they wanted to carry on doing royal duties whilst earning a living (like Prince Michael, Prince William when he was a pilot) – reports said it was the QUEEN who said they couldn’t be half in, half out.

        The Queen& Charles have been connected to the Panama papers & investments offshore so they use money generated from the royal estates/family to boost their fortunes aka profiting of status.

        I remember the Michaels getting into trouble with dodgy connections with Russians& their free rent at KP (which no doubt the Queen now pays) but what consequences has Princess Michael faced trading with her HRH? On her website it sells books with HRH branding, she does lectures on royal subjects etc http://www.princessmichael.org.uk

        Beatrice who uses her HRH at work was at a meeting with the Chinese ambassador with Andrew etc and recently with the Pakistan PM. I doubt she’s getting high profile meetings with top politicians just because of her work expertise same as Fergie with all her meetings in the Middle East. Fergie with new publishing deals under Duchess Inc or producing movies about Queen Victoria.

        So yes non working royals do blatantly use their royal connections& make money off the family name.

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        10K, he IS alluding to TQ though (quick Google search brought this (and a lot more!) up:

        “In the TV ad, Phillips raises the glass of milk and says: “This is what I drink”, before the ad ends with a caption that reads: “British royal family member, Peter Phillips.” Images in the ad are of Longleat, another stately home in Wiltshire, and the images of jersey cows grazing appear to be in Switzerland.

        “In the ad shown on Dragon TV, Phillips boasts of being raised on Jersey milk from the herd at Windsor Castle before savouring the milk in a room that looks like an English aristocratic home with a view over Shanghai.”

        https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3047137/racism-row-erupts-after-queen-elizabeths-oldest-grandson-peter

    • MsIam says:

      Queenie didn’t seem to mind when Fergie was hawking curling wands on QVC as “the Duchess”. And don’t give me anything about “well, she’s not an HRH so…..” Fergie has been divorced from Andrew for over 20 years and she’s going to milk that association for the rest of her life. I can’t believe she is so concerned about her own grandson setting up a charitable foundation but doesn’t bat an eye about what others do.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      The Queen can’t take away their titles. Only parliament can. The last thing the Royals want is parliament debating this. That’s why the Sussexes agreed to not use their HRH and can’t use Royal in the name. Some members of parliament already commented that it was inappropriate when the Sussexes announced they were leaving. That’s why it took so long for it to be announced that they couldn’t use Royal. BRF weren’t going to start behind the scenes negotiations until after Brexit. Enough members had a problem with it that it has been decided they can’t use it.

      @pineapple- Charles doesn’t directly own the Duchy of Cornwall and his control over it is limited. While he does profit from it, most of what the Duchy owns isn’t advertised as being owned by the Duchy.

      @BayTampaBay- Duchy originals is owned by the Duchy as is Highgrove itself. That’s why it’s also run as business and the gardens are open to the public. He had to convince the Duchy council that it was a good investment. Duchy originals goes mainly to the upkeep of Highgrove. It will all pass to William when he is The Prince of Wales.

      • I disagree about Highgrove, Ainsley7 — Charles bought Highgrove with personal funds (this is referenced in several biographies of him); he then ‘sold’ it to the Duchy so upkeep, repairs, etc are now paid for out of that fund as opposed to his private funds. This is how the rich do it. This is how they stay rich. They shuffle around things like houses, etc to be ‘owned’ by a different pot of money that is not part of their personal fortune, but get all the benefit and use of the item. The Duchy may have an advising board, and an archaic set of guidelines, but Charles, as the Prince of Wales, drives it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      HRH Duchess of York published several books in the first few years of marriage to Andrew. Her name on those books is listed as HRH Duchess of York. Profiting off her royal title, but Queen allowed it.

      Honestly, do all these new names on here think we have no knowledge of the history of the BRF?

      • Erinn says:

        I think the whole thing is tricky. I’m sitting here reading all of this – and I absolutely see both sides of the argument. I think there’s a difference between having your title placed with your name… because it IS your title… and then using Royal when you’re no longer performing the actual royal duties. It’s all just about semantics at this point, and some obvious favoritism that’s muddling everything – as usual. They’re such a prickly bunch.

        I wonder if they’d ACTUALLY be upset if they were just using HRH/Ducal titles and the issue is literally just about the use of “Royal” where they are no longer performing royal duties? I do understand why the other names have been thrown around – but a lot of it is sort of gray area things. Obviously all royals are profiting off of their position – it’s what they do.

        The whole thing is a mess. But I also suspect that M&H had a pretty good idea of what they’d be dealing with when they cut the ties, and I think they’re more than willing to just leave some of this at the door because it was never an important sticking point for them. I’m just here hoping that they’re much happier, even with all of this crap.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Fergie was performing royal duties WHILE making money off her title, Erinn. Prior to the separation and divorce.

      • YaGotMe says:

        @ Erinn — I’m with you somewhere on the fence. I think there is a huge difference between publishing a couple of children’s books and setting up a global foundation that will (presumably) handle millions of dollars and somehow be set up to provide personal financial security as well. I think *that* is where the difference lies and as a global brand, it does *sound* like it would be on behalf of, in service of the Queen.

        As far as milk man making money off of “member of the royal family”…he is, is it tacky? Sure. Is it in the same league? I don’t think so.

        So again – I see both sides of the argument.

      • notasugarhere says:

        You’re conflating two separate things. There is the Foundation they are creating vs. the ways in which they will earn a living (which would possible be where funding for security comes from).

        Sarah chose to use her HRH and her title to earn money *while she was a working royal*. A couple dozen books, tv series, Young Victoria film. All while using either HRH The Duchess of York or Duchess or York. HRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent continue in that vein.

        People keep insisting somehow what Harry and Meghan are doing is wrong, different. When the path has been set before they came along, in tacky tacky ways Harry and Meghan would never do.

  8. Sarah says:

    Wow, the monarchy is going out of the way to make ITSELF look bad. I’m fascinated at how this is unfolding. But sure, rehabilitate Andrew, it’s not like he did something truly bad like hang out with a convicted sex offender or allegedly rape a trafficked teenager. Oh wait…

  9. Sofia says:

    This is ridiculous.

    Will the Queen ask Princess Michael to stop putting HRH Princess Michael of Kent on the books she sells for profit?

    Didn’t think so

  10. sue denim says:

    wow, abusers gonna abuse… and yes, more evidence to not look back… Sussex Loyal…

  11. OriginalLala says:

    It’s sounds like it’s probably for the best – they want to carve out a progressive role for themselves and unfortunately there is absolutely nothing progressive about the BRF and the concept of royalty. They will be happier and better off cutting as many ties with that horrid viper’s nest as possible.

  12. Royalwatcher says:

    It’s the Daily Heil so I’m not assuming it’s true until we get some official confirmation. However, if true, the whole thing is bull$hit because even one RR and the old chef who’s always bashing the Sussexes use the word royal in their SM handles. Not to mention the guy who owns the SussexRoyal twitter account was never ordered to stop using it.

    Plus…as noted in by the post’s author, Harry IS royal.

    IMO this is all just a way for the BRF to distract from PedoAndy’s bday celebrations and the 3 family divorces with the news dropping at 1:00am or whatever. The queen and the rest of the family are trash and Harry and Meghan are well out of it. I hope they skip the CW Day events, change their and Archie’s last names, and never see that family again. Why should they “support the queen” when she treats them like garbage?

  13. Ariela says:

    It’s not the same as that POS Prince Andrew though. If Andrew, having been stripped of his royal duties, now decided to become a private citizen and make money by other means, he would also be told to stop using his HRH, etc. So it’s not the same situation at all.

    The issue is that royals, privileged and connected as they are, appear to have an unfair advantage, when being seen as trading on their royal status.

    Impersonally, I’m done with the monarchy and wish we would stop paying for this ridiculous institution, with their silly titles designed to make them look better than us. I think Harry and Meghan did the right thing by leaving. I’m sure they’re going to thrive and I hope the BRF crashes and burns.

    • Ali says:

      @ARIELA why imagine what would happen to Andrew when it hasn’t occurred.

    • MsIam says:

      Tell me again why Fergie is running all over Saudi Arabia meeting with God only knows who again? I’m sure they need her expertise on all sorts of issues.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Tell us again why Fergie was allowed to use HRH Duchess of York to publish books for personal gain in the first few years of her marriage?

      Or how HRH P&P Michael of Kent continue to use their royal titles for personal gain?

    • Are you sure he would stop using it though? Who’s going to make him? Surely not the Queen.

  14. Aang says:

    The British family doesn’t own the word royal. I could trade mark Aangroyal and sell stuff, or at least try too. The queen could take away the duke title if H&M don’t cooperate but she can’t even legally make them stop using Sussex, right? It’s just a word and they own the trademark not the queen. Plus I could probably legally change my name to duchess aang so even that title is meaningless in reality and Harry and Meghan can be Dukes without the queen’s permission. I reject the fact that anyone is “royal” by birth or marriage, the idea of hereditary ruling class is grotesque. So let H&M call themselves whatever they want. Telling them what words they can use is just petty.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Prince Philip changed his name from Glucksburg to Mountbatten so I see no reason why you could not legally be “Duchess Aang” if you so choose.

      • Yes, he did and the Windsor’s changed their name as well: The Windsor dynasty was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I. After her death, one of Diana’s friends was quoted being told by Diana about a conversation that took place between Phillip and Diana during her divorce negotiations. Supposedly, Phillip said, if Diana wasn’t careful they would strip her of her title and she’d go back to just having the title, Lady Diana. She supposedly answered him, that she was ok with that as her Spencer title was hundreds of years older and more English than any title he or any of the other Windsor’s held. I hope that was true — cause I love it. 😎

    • OriginalLala says:

      please become Duchess Aang! these stupid “royal” titles mean nothing other than to enforce classism so why not dilute the royal ‘brand”… I am here for it :)

    • Krista says:

      This is what I was thinking! Is someone going to make them stop using it? I don’t think they have to! The Queen can say it, but I don’t believe it’s as legal as they are making it out to be!

  15. Lisa says:

    The hypocrisy given the fact Zara, her brother and other royal adjacent benefit commercially but with Harry and Meghan it is the biggest deal ever and we must protect the crown. Whatever. Also the only reason she has not taken away their other titles is because she can’t as it would have to be the government who would do that. In any case let them continue showing themselves and being tone deaf

    • Col says:

      They can and will benefit commercially like Peter. They just can’t use that branding. People on this site have comprehension problems. Zara has a talent she can trade off independent of being royal, unlike the other 3.

      • Maria says:

        Peter’s milk commercials referred to his upbringing in Windsor and literally said “BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY MEMBER PETER PHILLIPS”. Is that not branding as well?

      • notasugarhere says:

        It appears some people on this site have comprehension problems, those people being all the brand new names who showed up this morning.

        HRH Duchess of York, HRH P&P Michael of Kent. Working royals who use/used their royal titles for personal monetary gain.

        It appears all the new names on this site do not know the history of the BRF ase well as the rest of us.

      • GuestWho says:

        I’m not sure which “other 3″ you’re referring to – but to be clear, Meghan and Harry have enormous talents to “trade off” of. Why do people insist on ignoring their past succesess?

      • Becks1 says:

        @nota – right? sudden influx of new posters all with very similar talking points. New posters are great – good for the site, good for the comments section – but the fact that they are all parroting the pro-Cambridge points is just slightly suspicious.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Suspicious and tumblr obvious.

      • Col says:

        Maria,
        What H+M are doing; having a website, instagram account branded Sussex Royal, 100′s of trademarks, (yes I know possibly to just protect those trademarks) the level of their personal ambition is several orders of magnitude above what Peter Phillips has done in terms of intensity and the attention it garners. This is what, the only time he’s done something like this in he umpteen yrs since the wedding photos situation? As someone else here said, he received criticism for both these things and may have been privately reproached as well. He’s small time, Michael is small time. Seriously how many people are going to buy her book, like five? I think the entire institution should go , but H+M still get funding that Peter has never had, and what they want to achieve is huge on a global level so they will naturally get more scrutiny than f****** Michael of Kent. They are being compared to the Obamas, The gates, Oprah, etc. And Meghan has apparently spoken of wanting to break the internet.

        Again they took a private jet for their banking speech where they got easy money, while lecturing the rest of us on eco friendly travel. A bank with terrible environmental record, but they’re getting the adoration from bigwigs and the payday they want, so who cares about being hypocritical once again right? And don’t tell me their schedule is so busy right now that they just don’t have time to fly commercial.

        Guess who, I’m referring to Harry, Meghan and Peter. Peter has a college degree, his own company and before that had a series of normal jobs in the business world. Harry lacks this and no I don’t think any of them are more talented than your average Joe. They’ve done straightforward things that anyone with their connections could.

      • Sid says:

        I think some of those folks are annoyed that this is one of the few sites on the net where the BRF discussions aren’t a 24-7 Meghan and Harry bashfest and they want to change that. No thank you.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Col, what you’re writing just doesn’t work. Harry and Meghan aren’t allowed to use their legal titles and earn a living – because they’d be more successful than other royals or family members who did it before?

        Peter Philips is just plain tacky, making money off being a (fake) royal and monetizing his grandmother’s Jubilee for profit. His company? His only two clients were Zara and Mike Tindall. Sarah made money of her title while still a working royal. P&P Michael of Kent are both tacky and making money off their titles while representing the Queen.

        ‘And Meghan has apparently spoken of wanting to break the internet. ‘ Take it back to tumblr, troll.

        Harry and Meghan are going to do fine, on a global scale, much to tumblr’s dismay.

      • Col says:

        I don’t have a tumbler, and I’m sure they’ll do fine. They don’t need titles to print money. Of course they’re tacky- I never said otherwise; the whole family is, including your precious H+M. However, the outrage here about very minor non working members not getting the same flack, well of course they don’t, there 10000 times less famous.

      • Maria says:

        So? Just because they’ll be more successful at their branding doesn’t mean it’s wrong, or inconsistent with the rest of the royals monetizing their name.

        What is it with people INSISTING Harry and Meghan are “lecturing” people on eco-friendly travel? When did that ever happen? It didn’t.

        Comparing what Harry and Peter have versus lack makes no sense since you’re ignoring the person who knows PR, who has worked since she was 13, and knows what she’s doing.

        The “your precious H + M” speaks volumes. This site tries to be fair instead of reciting Daily Mail talking points. Sorry that disappoints you.

      • Col says:

        Maria,
        On their instagram in this summer they lectured about fossil fuel use,etc, and how we can “only do this together.” Look it up if you care.

      • baytampaBay says:

        @col – The global warming problem can only be successfully attack and defeated if “we” all work together. “WE” = every nation and state on the planet.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Hmm, more feigned outrage that skips over all the other royals using private jets. Again, tumblr obvious.

      • Col says:

        Baytampa, reread your dense comment, did anything I say contradict the notion that “we” all have to do it together? That is what Harry and Meghan preach, but don’t do themselves, having again flew private on the way home from the bank summit. And they are just so busy chillin on vancouver island that they couldn’t spare an extra moment to fly commercial. They don’t even have their old excuse of protecting Archie this time.

        Nota, I mentioned other Royals flying private in another (now deleted) comment here but this thread is about Harry and Meghan. I don’t support other Royals either. The belief that H+M are the most brilliant, altruistic deities that ever walked the earth, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a tumbler troll is ridiculous.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The influx of tumblr trolls is obvious, even when they pretend otherwise.

    • windyriver says:

      Just a point of information, according to Omid’s sources, Harry and Meghan were NOT paid for the JP Morgan speech. It’s on his podcast from 2/14, about 6 minutes in.

      ETA: This comment was meant to be under @nota’s comment directly above.

  16. LaraK says:

    Ok, what leverage does the queen actually have? If they tell her to go stuff herself in the Royal tea cozy, can she actually sue them? I mean if Burger King can call themselves that, why can’t Harry and Meg just use the name and flip off the queen?
    Legally speaking of course. The family dynamics are a whole other thing.
    I’m just wondering what will push them to just completely flip off the whole family.

    • sue denim says:

      I really like the Burger King analogy :)

    • 10KTurtle says:

      Hmmm, good points. What *would* she do?

    • YaGotMe says:

      Legally speaking – outside of the UK – I doubt there is anything she can do. SussexRoyal is Instagram and not subject to any laws related to the Crown, same with their website which I’m sure is based out of Canada or the US ( not sure, but an assumption ).

      What they CAN do is tie it to the money. As far as we know, at this time, they are still funded privately by Charles. Someone is paying for the rental in Canada, I’m sure to some degree the travel, staffing etc. so while I can’t see any legal enforcement behind this edict, I can see the petty bastards blackmailing them for compliance while they are still in limbo financially.

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        But the thing is, they don’t HAVE TO BE TIED to Charles’ income. While I understand Harry’s AND Meg’s money might not be high enough in “liquid assets” at this time, it wouldn’t take that long to free up some income, or to get it re-invested to draw higher dividend yields to live “comfortably” (and yes, those are more risky). While they may not live like “royals”, they can live very well off their own accounts.

        Add to this, they are hustlers and will surely be able to generate income… I don’t know, maybe it’s a little greedy for them to take anything from Charles… or is this just until this spring, when the “split” is “final”?

      • Lady D says:

        Harry can write a book or three. Her, Charles and William will be all he needs to write about to live comfortably forever.

    • Lizzie says:

      The queen can take away Sussix dukedom – that is probably her last card and it’s big.
      So does the queen want to buy all the SussixRoyal trademarks? That would be my first move, make an offer Liz or they go in the auction block. Too bad PH and MM are too classy to do it.

      • Liz version 700 says:

        Very true but I don’t think she can take away Harry’s Prince title which would then make Meghan Princess Meghan and TGAT would make the racist DM commenters and vile courtiers faint.

      • Nic919 says:

        The Sussex title cannot be removed from Harry. There would need to be a bill of attainder passed by parliament (which only happened if that person committed treason) and that will never happen. Sussex belongs to him forever.

  17. Becks1 says:

    Other sources (like Omid) have said that this has been discussed for a while now, but nothing has been decided yet. Which makes sense – their IG handle and such came about when they WERE still FT working royals, so its not like they created that after Sussexit. And they bought the rights to their web domain very early on, even if they didn’t use it.

    I’m more rolling my eyes at the timing of these stories and the glee from the RRs. They really hate Harry and Meghan.

    The funny thing is, they could just be Harry and Meghan. “Foundation of Harry and Meghan.” And they would still be just as popular. Yes, being “royal” brings a certain prestige to some events and appearances, but as long as they are still duke/duchess and Harry is still Prince Harry, they’ll still have that. But their popularity at this point far exceeds just being royal and honestly, I think that while the courtiers and more conservative monarchists may take glee in this kind of news, I think the pettier the queen looks, the more people support H&M.

    Also, this announcement/leak compared to the birthday announcement for “HRH the duke of York” is again…..bad.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      There is an article at Tatler online saying the no one really wants to attend Andrew’s birthday party.

      • 10KTurtle says:

        It’ll be like all the events Donald tries to host- D list celebrities and the most deplorable sycophants who are all in it to get something for themselves.

      • KellyRyan says:

        Paid to attend, e.g., Drumpf paid to wear hats, t-shirts and cheer.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Kate’s ‘friend’ the editor covering for her when she’s papped showing up at the party? W&K didn’t want to go but had to for appearances?

      • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

        New story this morning said TQ and TRF will NOT be attending either. Think they finally heard the uproar? lol

      • I have no problem with Andrew’s extended family members (including his mother as his mother and not in her role as Queen) attending a private birthday celebration for him. My problem was the (now cancelled) party the Queen was going to host and (the now cancelled) bell ringing and flag waving for him. His private birthday party —🤷🏻‍♀️— I could care less.

    • Guest with Cat says:

      All very good points.

    • Carrie says:

      Does “royal” still bring prestige? Lazy as fk, mediocre, paedo loving freaks. Hmm not sure where prestige comes into that.
      Next time I’ll tell you how I really feel…
      Ok I’ll tell you now. 😂 The queen is a nasty old vindictive bitch. When they talk about her life of service and duty etc what has she done exactly apart from keeping schtum and waving? It’s only recently she has added to her job description which now appears to be: protect and support alleged paedophiles. What a waste of space this family are.

      • Nyro says:

        She’s done nothing but cut ribbons, christen ships, and hold tea parties and state dinners. The only thing I can respect about her is her service as a mechanic during WW2. Other than that, she’s basically a 93 year old version of Kate. She does nothing and says nothing and the British media have been embiggening her for nearly 70 years. If an event is positive, they give her credit for it. If an event is negative, they rush to shield her from the blame and backlash. It’s one big joke. And there are far more interesting and consequential elderly women walking this earth. Betty Windsor ain ‘t fit to scrub their underwear.

      • notasugarhere says:

        She spent a lot of time meddling in the Commonwealth, most of that being hidden from the people in the UK at the time.

  18. Who ARE These People? says:

    The Queen seems to be firm about the appearance of not profiting but she and those around her seem to make out very well indeed.

  19. Megan H says:

    I’m not sure that this leaking was a great call. This combined with an abandonment of the TM applications would mean that someone else was free to use those.

    Also, I’m not sure that the Queen could stop them in other countries. If they file a US TM, not based on a foreign application, they would probably be successful

    • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

      I would think they could still hold onto the trademarks, even if not “using” them, just for that reason: to prevent someone else from using it.

    • None of their leaking is a good call. It’s like with Diana and the way they handled her popularity — instead of leaning in to it, they failed to support her in any meaningful way. The Firm still doesn’t get it, that they cannot command who has charisma on the world stage and who doesn’t. Meghan and Harry together have it. They should have leaned into that instead of helping to undermine them and force them out. You cannot put lightening in a bottle and put a stopper on it and contain it, no matter how royal you are.

  20. Megan H says:

    I’m not sure that this leaking was a great call. This combined with an abandonment of the TM applications would mean that someone else was free to use those.

    Also, I’m not sure that the Queen could stop them in other countries. If they file a US TM, not based on a foreign application, they would probably be successful

  21. Chrissy says:

    Someone yesterday mentioned “SussexGlobal” as a new name for their trademark. Go big, Harry and Meghan! The Queen and her minions are petty af. You mentioned Pedo Andy covorting with rapists and dictators to line his own pockets off the back of his title. How about “Duchess Fergie” doing the same for years? But that’s allowed? I wonder what Charles thinks of this. SMH

  22. Rapunzel says:

    I’m not sure I buy this. This could just be the media trying to force this to become true by acting like it is.
    I’m fairly certain that if TQ didn’t want them using Sussex Royal, that would have been decided/ announced at the time it was decided/announced they wouldn’t use the HRH.

    If this is true, I suspect someone got in TQ’s ear about it because the Sussexes are still too popular.

    Or, if true, this is happening because of headlines like: “Prince Andrew’s millionaire friend Peter Nygård, 78, is seen with scantily-clad women in his Bahamas compound where the fashion exec is accused of raping ten teens after plying them with alcohol and drugs”- currently a Fail headline that maybe queenie is trying to distract from? Yeah, that’s probably the real answer.

    • (TheOG)jan90067 says:

      That, and the fact that no one wants to be seen going to poor Pedo’s party! Boo-friggin’-hoo! Mummy’s favorite boy is starting to be publicly shunned. I think she *really* did think this would disappear, just like the way she ducks her head in the ground to avoid anything “unpleasant” around her. She doesn’t make a move until forced. “One” doesn’t like to get “involved” lol

    • Interesting Rapunzel. So this could be the rotten royal courtiers and rabid royal press driving this point on SussexRoyal and hoping it gets enough public outrage to stick. Very interesting hypothesis.

  23. aquarius64 says:

    I was pissed off when I first read this but Omid Scobie and CNN are reporting this is still being negotiated. I think a palace minion leaked this to test public opinion (and to distract from the Westminster bells ringing for Dancing with Pedophiles Andy’s birthday today). Remember the BRF can’t only appeal to the UK but beyond. SM makes the criticism more sharp and reverence less appealing. Suppressing stories of possible cracks in a future regent couple’s marriage shows how image conscious the Windsors are.

  24. HK9 says:

    PR blunder AGAIN. You’ve got a commonwealth full of black and brown people watching how the RF is dealing with this and it’s full of petty. Instead of simply letting them keep it because you’ve got pedo working for you and moving on, you want to continue to bother the two people who will continue to work hard for people. This is a bad look from any direction. I foresee countries leaving the commonwealth one by one, since it’s not worth much these days.

    • Gigi says:

      You think they care what people of colour think

      • HK9 says:

        No I don’t-which is why this is a problem. And if the RF want to continue in their current capacity, they have to realize they can’t continue to alienate a commonwealth full of them. If no one needs the RF then, why fund them? The RF is cutting off their nose to spite their face, as they literally do no know how and which battles to “fight” so that they can sustain themselves.

      • Mich says:

        They do care…in as much as the last vestiges of Empire matters to them. The only Commonwealth countries that are majority white are Canada and Australia. Literally the entire world is talking about the UK’s racism because of how Meghan has been treated.

    • Harla says:

      I agree HK9 and as I said below, the more the Queen (courtiers) push Harry and Meghan out the more support the Sussex’s receive and the more people are seeing just how petty, racist and immoral the royal family really is and are questioning their relevance, cost and morals.

    • February Pisces says:

      The queen claims to love the commonwealth so very much. She thinks if they are photographed with a bunch of brown and black children that will make them not look racist at all. The treatment of Meghan and Harry is pure segregation.

  25. S808 says:

    Just like the QCT positions, I would’ve let go of Sussex Royal if I were them. They don’t need royal in their name anyway. I say drop it and sever another tie to the royal family (surface level at least). Having royal in their name feel like it’d be leaving a back door open for the press to justify being in their business.

  26. Originaltessa says:

    I never liked it to begin with. The Royal part always seemed weird to me. They should be Sussex – something else. I don’t like global either, unless they plan to make it a truly global organization, which I doubt. So, The Sussex Foundation?

    • Eliza_ says:

      A lot on here like Sussex Global. Which fits. I suggested Sussex Change as they always use the “forces for change” in their brand. the original name “Sussex royal: the foundation of the Duke and duchess of Sussex” was weird so before it even opens to public they have a chance to rebrand it, so at least it’s a better time.

      • That’s good Eliza. I like SussexGlobal, but SussexChange is good. Or SussexForChange 🤔. I’m sure they will do what’s right for them, but it is interesting to think of what they might go with. And I do like Kaiser’s suggestion of SussexKeen, although probably only us celebitchies would get it.

  27. Bohemian Angel says:

    I bloody hate this family (the Windsors).
    If I was Harry and Meghan I would throw the titles back to that so called queen, fuck her, her family and the people of Sussex that signed that petition. They should just use their names which everyone knows anyway, just cut that family off completely if they are going to be this petty. Damn!

  28. Nev says:

    Sussex Keen!!!!!!
    THE SHADE.
    I can’t. Sooooooo funny.

  29. Chica71 says:

    Sussex HM…. Gets my vote!

  30. Eliza_ says:

    Only an act of Parliament can take away peerage titles, so Sussex is theirs. And their HRHs can’t be removed either, they’re choosing not to style themselves that way – like many royals in the family.

    I think not using HRH and Sussex Royal while they’re going their own way for branding is fine. They’ll change their Instagram handle to Sussex Change or something similar. While it’s annoying now, it’s still a government function they’re not participating in. They’ll be fine and will make their own way and by not using “royal” titles/ names they can prove it’s on their own merit and no one can take it away from them.

  31. Cidy says:

    TQ is so f-ing petty but that’s fine. She wants them to fail, but they wont. Being royal is not going to stop M&H from reaching their goals; #teamsuxxesglobal

  32. Eyfalia says:

    No, no, as I understood this, nothing has been decided yet. Discussion are still ongoing and “Beckys” article was maybe revealed early so that the Sussexes might drop it.

  33. Jessica says:

    I have mixed feelings. I DO think they trademarked everything because they were planning to monitize the brand. However, Andrew.

    • Eliza_ says:

      They trademarked everything to yes make money and stop others from making money off their name too.

      Prince Andrew is currently the naughty boy in the corner – no one’s taking to him, he’s losing his fun assignments (Will meeting with his naval patronage seems to suggest most will be transitioned away) but honestly they’re doing it so quietly. It’s not going to make the scandal disappear if you just slowly transition him out until people forget. He’s a criminal who needs to face his day in court. It’s a bad look for the queen to protect him, he’s old enough to fight his own battles.

    • GuestWho says:

      Then why do you think the Cambridges trademarked things in the exact same way?

  34. MsIam says:

    I’m waiting for either Omid or the Sussexes to announce it themselves. If I had a buck for every time Becky and the RRs have been wrong about sh!t…. Anyway, I’m sure their team will come up with something else. Plus, I thought I read that this would only apply in the U.K.? Obviously the Queen doesn’t control the word “royal” worldwide.

  35. Rapunzel says:

    While contemplating an official name change, H&M should have a rotating banner of possible names….may I suggest:

    Sussex “At least we’re not doing milk ads in China”
    Sussex “Epstein what?”
    Sussex “Rose who?”
    Sussex “five little questions”
    Sussex “I studied CDev for 8 years and all I got was this struggle survey”
    Sussex “I ate at the pizza Express in Woking too, and all I got was this lousy Grandma who loves my rapist uncle more than me”

    • Guest with Cat says:

      @Rapunzel, I’m so glad I finished my coffee before I got to your post. I would have spit it out laughing otherwise. Lol.

    • kerwood says:

      @Rapunzel, BRILLIANT!

    • Oh that is too funny Rapunzel. Thanks for the laugh. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

    • Lizzie says:

      IMHO – LIz should have stepped back at 70 or 80 and let Charles rule as regent. It is cruel to leave that man waiting to do a job until he is well past 70. Can you imagine a family business that leaves everything in the hands of a 93 y/o with no transition? The old battle-axe is selfish and petty and always has been. Typical Windsor though.

    • Liz version 700 says:

      Rapunzel your comment… “chefs kiss.” Brilliant.

  36. Osty says:

    It all comes down to their popularity especially on IG . The royal family is so myopic and foolish its actually funny to watch. Sme shd tell them the brand is popular cos of harry and Meghan not because of a name. If that was the case William n his assistant would have been the popular couple n wouldn’t have done everything in their power to chase them out

  37. Bookie says:

    The Cambridges probably got their panties in a bunch that SussexRoyal is now beating KensingtonRoyal for followers on Instagram and demanded that “Royal” be dropped from the Sussex’s account.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They can simply change their name in their settings and keep their existing posts and followers. William can whine and complain all he wants, but Harry and Meghan got out from under his boot heel.

  38. Sibi says:

    What’s even the fuss about? Wasn’t it clear from the beginning that they would lose their ‘Royal’ in ‘RoyalSussex’ since they are not working royals anymore? You can’t be a royal if you left the royal family. Meghan and Harry should work on their own brand to be honest. Who wants to be associated with Pedo Prince Andrew anyway? This is the best what could have happened to both of them.

    • MeganBot2020 says:

      Except they have not left the royal family (Harry is still 6th in line to the throne), and most of the royals are not “working royals”.

      Tons of non-working, minor royals commercialise their royal status.

      Pedo Prince Andrew is further down the line of accession than Harry, and he was using Buckingham Palace itself for his dodgy money-making scam PitchPalace.

      • Sibi says:

        Over a month ago the Queen gave a statement about H&M leaving. They left the royal family (the firm) but of course they stay part of the Queens family. So if you’re not part of the firm, you cannot use their title to earn money. I don’t know how to make it clearer for you since English is not my first language. Being royal means being privileged and being part of the brand. H&M don’t want to have royal privileges anymore and live as private people. They don’t want to be part of the firm anymore. You can’t have the cake and eat it. They either royal or they’re not. I’m proud of them living their own life. They don’t need the firm anyway.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Sibi, Andrew was making money off his title while a working royal. Sarah Ferguson did it with her books, while she was a working royal and after. Prince and Princess Michael of Kent use their titles all the time to make money.

        We keep pointing out the hypocrisy, but some people keep failing to see it.

      • MsIam says:

        @Sibi explain to me then Eugenie and Beatrice, who are HRH non working royals who hold jobs, support charities, etc. That is what makes this look vindictive, that these “rules” you are talking about only apply to some members of “the firm” and not others. The truth is that rules apply as the queen likes, there is nothing “fair” or logical about it. Which is fine, she’s the queen. But then don’t come in here with these fake justifications and “of courses” like this all perfectly reasonable when you know it is not.

    • Becks1 says:

      For the cheap seats – they.didn’t.leave.the.royal.family.

      Harry is still Prince Harry. He’s still the son of the future king and brother of the future future king. They still have their HRH titles, even if they aren’t using them. Harry is still the queen’s grandson. They are still part of the royal family. They are just no longer working royals.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I’m wondering if maybe they WERE stripped of the “HRH” title, which would mean they are not royal anymore? They would still be part of the family, as in blood relative of the royals, but they themselves would not be royal. It has nothing to do with blood quantum, or where Harry is in line to the throne — a non-royal (like Anne’s children) are still “family” members and still in line to the throne, but without the HRH, they are not royalty.

      • Sibi says:

        Go back to your cheap seat honey. Just read the statement of the Queen from about a month ago. It says that they’re stepping back as senior royals which means that they won’t be part of the firm anymore. But of course they are part of the Queen’s family. They are not working for the firm, so they can’t use ‘royal’. H&M want to independent from the firm and want to be private citizens which means they can’t be royal at the same time and earning money in the name of the crown. That’s a logic consequence.

      • Becks1 says:

        @mrsK – if they were stripped of their HRH, rather than just not using them, then I am 100% positive we would have heard that. William would have made sure that got out (or Andrew would have.)

        @Sibi – I have read the statement from the queen, thanks. And my statement still stands. They are no longer working royals, but they are still “royals” and are still part of the royal family. Like Beatrice and Eugenie.

        I think they should drop the royal from their name as it gives people (ahem) something else to criticize them for, but this insistence that Harry is no longer a royal is just weird.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Sibi – you were the one who specificall said they left the “royal family.” No. They have not. They are royals. The are part of the royal family – like all the other family members. You can be as snotty as you like about parsing between firm and family, but people are responding to what you actually wrote, not what you apparently meant.

      • MsIam says:

        @Sibi explain Andrew then? He “ allegedly” stepped back but is still using his HRH. He still wanted flags flown and bells rung on his birthday, if people hadn’t pushed back so hard he (and his mother) would have gotten their wish. Remember he wouldn’t have stepped back at all if people would have bought that okey-doke he was trying to sell during that interview. Look, I get trying to say “ well there are rules,” but when they are not applied equally and fairly, then that means that there are no rules.

      • baytampaBay says:

        IMHO and gut instinct, I believe it was Charles who forced the issue to make Andrew step back and in all real application take an early retirement.

      • Emmitt says:

        They did NOT leave the royal family. If Charles, William and William’s children died today, Harry would be the King.

        Harry and Archie* are still in the line of succession. They (and Meghan) are still HRHs; they just will not be styled “HRH.” They were NOT stripped of their titles. Just because they won’t use HRH doesn’t mean they aren’t still HRH; Lady Louise & Viscount James are technically HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James but their parents chose NOT to style them that way.

        Them not being working royals doesn’t mean they are out of the royal family; Beatrice & Eugenie are not working royals, yet they are running around being styled HRH Princess Beatrice/Eugenie.

        *Upon Charles becoming the King, Archie and any other Sussex sibling technically will be HRH Prince Archie/Prince-Princess _____________. The Sussex children will likely not be styled as HRHs but as of right now, being an HRH has nothing to do with whether you’re working or not.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        @ Emmitt –
        I don’t doubt people who are saying Harry and Meghan are still HRH, and those titles were not taken away from them (because the announcement regarding the HRH was not clear, so I can believe it still applies). However, being in line to the throne is a different issue. A person can be in line to the throne and not be royalty, like Anne’s children (who are commoners). So the fact that Harry is in line to the throne is not “proof” that he’s still an HRH (again, he may still be an HRH for all I know, just that his place in succession is unrelated to his HRH title).

        And Edward’s children are not currently HRH, and maybe they never will be. Unlike Anne’s children, Edward’s children are not commoners — they are the children of an earl (who will someday be a duke) so they are “peers” and not commoners (Edward’s son is a “Viscount”). But being a peer doesn’t make them royal.

        So there are three different types of family members: (1) royals like William, Beatrice, George, etc. (2) peers like Edward’s son, Viscount Severn. And (3) commoners like Anne’s children. All three categories are in line to the throne, because their titles have nothing to do with their order of succession. But their titles DO distinguish between the royals, peers, and commoners.

    • S808 says:

      They didn’t leave the royal family???

  39. Abby says:

    This is such bullsh*t. It’s making me rage-y. THEY ARE STILL SUSSEX ROYALS. And randos on the internet used Sussex royal before them—they had to get the name from some dude on Instagram.

    So angry.

    • Col says:

      Why, when you leave a job you leave the perks and the branding. Pulling the rug out from under the queen, without sorting the details out first was not a good move.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Ah, the Chelsy-obsessed. They didn’t pull the rug out from under the pedo-rapist-son-loving Queen. The discussions have been happening for months and their website was well-thought out and filled with info.

        If William hadn’t leaked to Wooten, the exit would have been much simple. But Billy the Basher had to try to have his moment.

  40. lee says:

    Wow, she is one vindictive B***h.

  41. Guest says:

    I bet they had a back up plan. Especially since all the bs they royal family pulled when they left. I hope harry eventually cuts all the ties with his “family”

  42. cherriepie84 says:

    Well whats next? baby Archie wont be able to use the last name Mountbatten (sp) anymore??? These “royals” are petty for sure.

    • Jaded says:

      They will be able to continue to use the last names Mountbatten-Windsor. When male or unmarried female descendants of Queen Elizabeth need to use a surname Mountbatten-Windsor is available to them. Prince Philip changed his last name to Mountbatten when he became a naturalised British subject and married the Queen. Given that Archie doesn’t currently have a royal title, the use of Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname is correct. Archie’s cousins, the children of Prince Edward, also use Mountbatten-Windsor as their surnames.

  43. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Republic NOW.
    Fuck ‘em. Fuck the lot of them. Fuck the monstrous old bag at the helm, her paedorapey son, his toe-sucked wife, his leeching daughters; the mobile wiglet-and-buttons unit, the rampantly unfaithful, tantruming heirbaby, the racist ‘Princess’, the assorted hangers-on and courtiers who are so anally retentive that if you banged their ribs they’d crap out a grand piano.
    Commonwealth members, look very carefully at the way this nest of inbred vipers treats people of colour, and vote accordingly

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      Prior to H&M I would have said, No, @Andrew’s Nemesis they do do good, blah blah. But the family’s treatment of these two, the family allowing such dreadful treatment by the press, no one standing up for them even ONCE and as a Commonwealth-er (even the word is striking me as colonial now, whereas prior to I thought all the countries together to create commonwealth and was proud to be part of it, cause my British heritage and all) you’re quite right. I’m done and am now a republican (though not of the GOP species). The scales have fallen from my eyes. The emperor has no clothes. I am done.

  44. MeganBot2020 says:

    The place where I’m currently working is almost directly next door to the official Buckingham Palace Gift Shop (the shop isn’t located inside Buckingham Palace, it’s an actual shop on a regular street nearby).

    £20 for a stuffed version of one of the Queen’s corgis.

    £225 for “Oh So Royal” pyjamas printed with royal-themed patterns.

    £75 for a cushion with a tacky embroidery of the Queen’s Imperial State Crown on it.

    £35 for an eye mask with the Imperial State Crown on one eye and the backside of a corgi on the other.

    But surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre Harry and Meghan using the word “Royal” in a CHARITABLE FOUNDATION are the ones cheapening the good royal name.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Does QEII get a licensing fee or residual payment percentage on all that tacky stuff?

      Is the above gift show privately owned or is it part of the Crown Estate?

      • MeganBot2020 says:

        From their website: “The income from every purchase that you make contributes directly to the care of the Royal Collection, one of the largest and most important art collections in the world, held in trust by Her Majesty The Queen for her successors and the nation.”

        Hmmmmm “held in trust.” Well it’s lovely of Queenie to hang on to all that priceless art work for me, but somehow I doubt my purchase of a tacky-ass Corgi keychain entitles me to ever actually look at any of it.

      • Nic919 says:

        Should we talk about all the money invested off shore as confirmed by the Panama papers? They are so inconsistent about everything it is hilarious that they are trying to pretend that using the word royal can’t be done by Harry and Meghan when it has been permitted for many others.

        Also this law would only have effect in the UK. The Queen can’t stop them from using Sussex royal in the US, Canada or elsewhere. With the UK pulling out of the EU, they could market the shit out of Sussex royal across the channel and there is nothing they could do.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Once again, “there is nothing wrong with selling goods for charity.” Paul Newman donated over 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS to charities by selling salad dressing and other foods. A LOT of people benefited from “Newman’s Own” foundation. I am no fan of the Queen, and I am not trying to defend the royal family’s treatment of Harry and Meghan. I’m saying I’m tired of posters snobbishly dismissing what generous people like Paul Newman have accomplished on behalf of charities.

  45. leigh says:

    I don’t need the words Sussex Royal to know its Harry and Megs. Change it to whatever and show you don’t give a fig. “Sussex Royal will now be known as Sussex for the Common Good” or whatever and in a week we’ll all be referring to it by SCG without any lasting trauma. Keep calm and carry on.

  46. martika says:

    If they want to be independent— then be independent. You can’t quit the family business and still expect to try to make money off the family “name”. I’m sure they’ll be fine without it, and it is probably best at the end of the day. Anything they achieve from this point forward will be all theirs and to their credit.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      Explain Fergie, then

      • Col says:

        Fergie is irrelevant.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        Why is Fergie irrelevant? Too inconvenient a truth for you, @Col?
        Looking at your various vindictive posts throughout these threads – guess so

      • notasugarhere says:

        Col doesn’t like that inconvenient truth of Fergie and P&P Michael of Kent using their HRH and titles to make money while working royals.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is their name. They continue to be royal, continue to have both Sussex and HRH as theirs.

    • kerwood says:

      @martika, Sarah Ferguson did, but I guess grifting while White is much more acceptable than breathing while Black to a lot of people including the Queen of England.

      • Shirleygailgal says:

        EXACTLY 100% Bingo. @kerwood…..seriously, NOTHING more needs to be said. You have summarized and created the kernel, the nugget of truth behind all the stories and gossip and lies and misrepresentations. Grifting while White. Breathing while Black. OUCH and bang on!!!

      • Gosh that’s good Kerwood: Grifting while white versus breathing while black. Love it.

      • Martika says:

        Fergie has grifted using her Duchess title — she lost HRH or any “royal” use back in the ’90s. Similar to Megan and Harry – they can still leverage their Duke and Duchess title, just not “royal”.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Fergie used her HRH and her title, while still married and before the separation, to earn private cash. Try again.

  47. Becks1 says:

    My issue with people suggesting that they drop “Sussex” as well and just get it over with is that there is always going to be SOMETHING.

    The press has insisted the Sussexes:
    -pay back Frogmore (supposedly in the works)
    -stop using their HRH (done)
    -stop using Royal (I’m going to assume that’s done or basically as good as)

    Next up they will insist they stop using Sussex, step down from the QCT, stop attending functions like Trooping, stop fundraising, stop meeting famous people, stop being better than Will and Kate, etc.

    It’s never going to stop. Its not like if they just stop using Sussex Royal people are going to be okay with them. People who don’t like them want to see them punished, and I’m not sure there is any point when they’ll think they’ve been punished enough.

    My personal take is that things like use of Royal etc were discussed as part of the “Sandringham summit” and any announcement relating to that would not be surprising to Harry and Meghan.

    I also think that this story from Rebecca English is interesting – remember she’s the one who had the meeting at KP, and then immediately reported that the Sussexes were in Canada? That’s strange.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      I think all this is being driven by the commentariat of The Daily Wail-n-Fail.

      I went to comment section on a article about David Linley Snowdon’s divorce just to see what was being said. 80% of the comments were about Megan & Harry. The Meghan haters basically wanted:

      1. Harry to be stripped of his Dukedom and his HRH
      2. Harry to be allowed to visit the UK only if he comes alone without Meghan
      3. Meghan banned from the UK for at least five years.
      4. Archie to be stripped of any title he might use as an Adult.
      5. DNA test on Archie to prove he is a Windsor-Mountbatten-Glucksburg
      6. Back rent for the year spent in Frogmore Cottage on top of 100% reimbursement for all costs.
      7. QEII to demand Harry divorce Meghan immediately and if he refuses QEII to annul the marriage.

      Becks1 is correct. The harassment will never stop.

      • GuestWho says:

        Those people are flipping psycos. The blind hate is truly disturbing. And, no, they will never stop.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have always thought that 40% of the commentariat at The Daily Fail were paid posters who just make up the vilest crap they can to whip the readership into a frenzy and generate revenue producing click$. I find the exact same comments posted over and over again on different articles under different monikers.

        I know paid posters exist as i have a friend who is a paid poster.

      • February Pisces says:

        @baytampa they are desperate to punish harry and Meghan. They think if they push hard enough he will leave her and end up with someone as dull and boring as Kate. The fact that he left with her is too much for them, because it shows just how much he loves her.

      • baytampaBay says:

        Just read an article at The Daily Wail-n-Fail outlining the remaining UK engagements for Sussexes through 01 April 2020.

        2.8K comments in 4 hours. If you own stock in the Daily Fail sell it now as Bill & Cathy could not and never will generate 2.8K comments over 10 days let alone 4 hours.

    • S808 says:

      It definitely won’t stop but I, for one, am here for them dropping Sussex Royal, throwing back the QCT positions and skipping Trouping. The Windsors are POS and I wouldn’t want to be near any of them. They can work with the youth of the commonwealth without QCT. Let Billy and Kaity Keen takeover. Be a separated from the BRF as possible. It won’t happen but a girl can dream.

      The press can throw tantrums about them fundraising but they’ll never be able to stop that. Nor stop them from making money. THEY demanded H&M leave and be financially independent if they wanted to be left alone and they’re actively working on it.

      • Becks1 says:

        @S808 I agree in that I think the Windsors are showing their true colors here and I wouldn’t blame Meghan if she never steps foot in one of their palaces again. But in terms of what is “demanded” of them in order to prove they really aren’t working royals – I don’t see that stopping any time soon. any choice they make I’m going to assume they are making on their own, but its still an ugly narrative being played out here. (which is why I think this tidbit about royal got leaked by KP, because it makes H&M look like they are begging to still use Sussex Royal and the Queen is saying no, but I don’t think that’s the reality.)

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yeah, seeing that she was the one reporting this was definitely an eyebrow raiser. Between English and Wootton, KP/William has been super active with leaks for the past two months. It all feels excessive and quite frankly a bit desperate. I don’t know if William is feeling pressure to keep the press off of his dirt or if something intense is happening behind the scenes (or maybe both?).

      • Sunday says:

        Putting my tinfoil tiara on, I can’t help but think this “leak” was intended to preempt an announcement by H&M – similar to how Wootton got the drop on their initial “stepping back” story and thereby tainted their rollout with KP’s agenda.

        They only launched with Sussex Royal because it was modeled after Kensington Royal (website, social media handles and foundation name formatting when they initially split from kant and wont). To me it makes perfect sense that they would want to start fresh with a name that truly reflects their values and mission. (Just because the rest of the BRF has the creativity of dingy beige stocking doesn’t mean that H&M can’t think of a great name.) But now the BM has the narrative of ~look what they had to do since the queen forbade them from using Sussex Royal. Just another way to undermine them, which is really dim bc it only makes the BRF look even worse and H&M’s inevitable reveal and success even more admirable. The convenient distraction from the rest of the nonsense going on with prince pedo and multiple divorces is the icing on the cake.

        Overall, it literally doesn’t matter. Harry & Meghan are so much bigger than the BRF, and rolling out their independent foundation with a complete rebrand seems like just the fresh start they’re hoping for. They will undoubtedly keep the trademarks of Sussex Royal bc as others have pointed out, it’s preventative, and migrating a site to a new domain and updating an insta handle are no big deal.

      • Nic919 says:

        Becky English is as much of a KP mouthpiece as Dan Wootton. She is the one who reported the exclusive on Broken Britain the Friday before Meghan’s cookbook was made public.

        They are so obvious.

    • Calibration says:

      @becks1 I did suggest it but not to placate the rabid, foul mob of daily Heil readers but for their own benefit going forward. In case, Sussex can be removed in the future.

  48. Spikey says:

    I have a question – *really* not an expert: So, the story goes that Pedo Andy rubbed shoulders with sketchy types because he didn’t have any income / not enough to fund his lifestyle. But he is the Duke of York like Charles is the Duke of Cornwall. Couldn’t Andy have established a flourishing Duchy business like Charles? Charles seems to be doing fine. And would the Cambridges and for that part the Sussexes have any be able to go down the same path? Traditionally being an aristocrat meant to own *the land* and profit off it. So if Harry and Meghan had (have?) any estates associated with their Sussex title could they still use “Duchy of Sussex” as a trademark? And if not, why not? (Aside from the fact that they probably don’t want to be glorified farmers.) Thanks for clarifying.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t think there’s land/money attached to those titles – York, Sussex, Cambridge, etc

    • Snap Happy says:

      The Duchy of Cornwall was established by one of the past Kings. I can’t remember which one. The purpose of it was the heir to the throne would have an income stream.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I Googled it so you don’t have too:

        “The duchy was established on 17 March 1337 by the Royal Great Charter out of the former Earldom of Cornwall by Edward III for his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the “Black Prince”, who became the first Duke of Cornwall”

  49. Snap Happy says:

    I’m not surprised they got territorial about the word Royal, but It would be truly shitty if they took away Sussex. They let the Nazi sympathizer keep his made up duke of windsor title and he gave up being King. I don’t know why they are being so hard on Harry and Meghan? Are they trying to stop others from leaving too? I doubt any of the other royals would have the earning potential the Sussex have. And all of the royals make money off their position. Andrew didn’t have the word royal but he used Pitch @ the palace. Palace implies royal connections.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      @SnapHappy See above
      @kerwood’s comment says it all, for me: Grifting while white…okie dokie. Breathing whilst black….UNTHINKABLE!!
      On the other hand, until we are told via their website/Instagram….I’m not convinced this is true. I believe nothing…NOTHING…till I hear it from them, directly.

  50. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I will believe it when I see it. The Daily Fail isnt a source for reputable info. So if the Sussexes rebrand their entire website and IG then I will believe it.

  51. Awkward symphony says:

    I call bull on this!! This is clearly another push from Rothermere(daily nail) & coordinated with other tabloids. The palace would he dumb to go this far when they are already on fire this week for forcing councils to fly flags for pedo Andy!
    They lost the plot. How is completely alienating the Sussexs going to help them in the long run?!!! Harry and Meghan already said they want to break away completely but were respectful to the queen and their patronages+commonwealth commitments.

  52. Middle of the road says:

    Very petty and disgusting. I don’t blame them at all if they don’t show up to any “Royal” events ever again. F*ck the royal family. How they’ve treated Meghan and Harry (mostly Meghan) is disgusting and unforgivable. Also their Instagram page has just as many followers as William and Kate’s page. I imagine they’d be more popular, but interestingly enough I’ve noticed every time they gain followers W&K gain the same amount. It’s almost as if someone refuses to allow little bro to be more insta famous.

    • I don’t have any social media accounts but I understand the Sussexes allow the use of whatever algorithm is in place to determine their number of followers is accurate; the Cambridge’s do not. So I’m taking away from that nugget of info that the Sussexes actually have the number of followers stated (not duplicates or whatever). If the Cambridge’s follower numbers go up each time the Sussexes’ number of followers grows — and their account is not open to monitoring — then it sounds like somebody is punching in bots to keep their numbers up there.

  53. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I kind of think that dropping the “royal” would be better for them given that Pedo Andy still has his HRH and anything tied to the RF is pretty toxic. But that’s just me.

  54. aria says:

    Harry and Meghan if you are listening, that throw away your Sussex, royal title and give up your position in that toxic line. you guys are so much better and you can earn the money. Say openly fu queen and Cambridge and cut the ties completely. Then you can make money whatever way you want. Being in line to the throne has not even worth it anymore. Meghan if you are smart, make harry ditch his family and his position completely and enjoy your life and say fu to the queen and rr.

  55. Jessica says:

    Andrew raped girls. Andrew raped girls. Just need to put this out there. ANDREW RAPED GIRLS!

  56. Harla says:

    I’m finding it interesting that the more the “royals” push Harry and Meghan out the more support the Sussex’s gain and the more people question the relevance, need, cost and morals of the royal family. So yeah, keep pushing and find out where that leaves you.

    • Shirleygailgal says:

      upvote click (I do wish there was an upvote button…and also, a return to top button, if anyone is listening )

  57. kerwood says:

    Well, I think the royal family is being very helpful. Harry and Meghan might have been experiencing some regret about leaving and now the Queen has reminded them why they ran away from those hateful, vindictive monsters. Changing their branding will cost them but in the end anything that gives them more freedom will be better for the Sussexes. And considering that people like Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergueson are free to use ‘royal’, being associated with the royal family isn’t as ‘prestigious’ as a lot of people seem to think.

    I have a feeling that this is ANOTHER strategic announcement. We’ll probably hear more about the Queen’s sex offender son soon enough.

    The Queen seems determined to show her TRUE colours. She’ll throw her grandson and grand-daughter in law under the bus for Meghan’s capital crime of being born Black. But she’ll hold sex offender son closer and closer. God save the Queen.

  58. yiza says:

    They are giving speeches at JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. It’s not entirely unreasonable that the Firm will want them to stop using the “Sussex Royal” title.

    • Guest with Cat says:

      Fine, but the Queen seems perfectly fine with Andy. I’m not even talking about the pedo mess, but everything else shady he is being outed for. And he and Fergie sure have traded on the royal titles. Andy directly dragged Buckhingham Palace itself into his mess and yet it seems like nobody can stop the Queen from giving her stamp of approval to him anyway. She will run around her courtiers to do that. But she has no problems in hiding behind them and have them pull out all the stops on every possible applicable law to throw roadblocks into her grandson’s way.

      Look, Harry was not trying to shirk royal duties. He very much wanted to carry on with that but he was desperately trying to get help from his FAMILY to deal with being trapped in the Royal Rota system that was abusing his wife and child and undermining everything he was trying to do as a royal representative.

      His own father and his grandmother hid behind protocol and courtiers to avoid having the necessary conversations with him to do this in an equitable and responsible manner.

      His brother timed leaks to cause the most impedance and inflict the most damage on any reasonable compromise plans he and Meghan tried to put on the table.

      Nothing that Harry and Meghan put on the table smacked of personal gain or exploitation. The media and the haters portrayed it like that. But those of us who comprehended what Harry actually said know they just wanted to stop the abuse. That was all. They wanted to do the royal work. They wanted to help their patronages and their causes.

      They were punished for fighting the tabloids that were undermining everything they tried to do for the Queen and for the British public. And we know it is because the BRF are scared to death the tabloids will unearth all their skeletons if they don’t sacrifice Harry and Meghan.

      • Tessa says:

        That Will and Kate and Kiddies fly Commercial Jet stunt (albeit an empty Commercial jet) was the most horrible thing. It shows William is petty and I think Kate is complicit. Now her face is on the cover of people and the Art History major is all of a sudden an expert on early child care.

    • GuestOne says:

      And royals like Charles,William, Sophie have worked with/done engagements sponsored by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs. Next

    • notasugarhere says:

      And a shady Indian billionaire paid 500,000 for Charles’s 65th birthday party and doesn’t know him personally. Charles who is personal friends with the murdering Saudi royals.

      Sarah Ferguson published books for personal cash in the first few years of marriage. Listed her name as ‘HRH Duchess of York’ on the books. All while being a working royal and making money off her title.

      See all the comments above HRH P&P Michael of Kent monetizing their titles.

    • MsIam says:

      @yiza speeches for Chase and Goldman Sachs? Why that is even worse than hanging out with a known sex offender/ pedophile so you can make business “ contacts”! Yeah Andrew made “ contacts“ alright, multiple times from what I hear all while wearing his HRH too… in fact I believe he said he had no regrets about it.

  59. Glorys says:

    I can see a difference between writing a book under your name and title (I.e. who you actually are) and inventing such a brand name. It has been said upthread, it is more about folks being misled into thinking something has the royal endorsement.

    • Lizzie says:

      Interesting, I see Fergie using HRH for profit and PP using Royal Family for profit.
      We all see pettiness.

    • MsIam says:

      @Glory “who they really are” IS HRH Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They are not imposters. Go follow up on Peter Phillips and his milk that is fit for a royal. Or the Duchess as she hawks her cookware, hair appliances and who knows what else. Your argument could possibly hold more weight if not for the selective enforcement of the “royal” policy.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        is Cathy Cambridge now merching hair appliances and hair pieces? Nothing would shock me.

      • MsIam says:

        @ BTB no it’s the Duchess of Ferguson that I was referring to. She used to come QVC selling her wares, and all the hosts used to call refer to her as “the Duchess” this and “The Duchess” that. Quite royal was she indeed. One poor host made the mistake of leaning over to give her an air kiss and she shoved the guy back and stuck out her hand instead. I thought the guy was going to die of embarrassment right on TV, lol!

      • baytampaBay says:

        @MsIam – I have to be honest if Goldman Sachs offered me as little as 50K USD to make a speech, I would probably take it.

        I am sure you, notasugarhere , Becks1 and Digital Unicorn would try and talk me out of it but I would make the speech, get the check, deposit it and then send an e-mail to Goldman Sachs with the words “see ya later suckers”!

  60. Mia says:

    Of course they should not use Sussex Royal anymore. This is obvious. It would be disingenuous for them to use it now.
    Now Prince Andrew needs to be stripped of his royal title and all that goes with that … ASAP!

  61. Le4Frimaire says:

    It seems interesting that this came out after the Sussexes made a few moves that show that they know how to make some big money moves. The JP Morgan talks really freaked everyone out because it means real money. The Royals don’t want them working within the family, that’s been pretty obvious, but now their upset that they have what it takes to work out Maude the family. I seriously am not clear on what exact role they wanted for the Sussexes as working royals if they didn’t actually want them to work. Did they just want them forever beaten down by nasty tabloid articles and jealousy? The fact is as soon as this becomes official in spring, Meghan and Harry will launch their foundation, continue with their charities and make money in whatever business deals work for them. If they rename as Sussex Global or the Meghan and Harry Trust, people still know who they are. They can’t go away if you keep putting them on the front pages. However, all this will be great material for that best selling book that will be published.

  62. Angie says:

    Time to push back Meghan and Harry. The only way to stop a bully (or bunch of bullies) is to push back. Tell them you will use the label and they can sue you if they want. Also let them know that if they don’t play ball, guess what? Tell all interview.

    • YaGotMe says:

      A couple of things — they are still being funded by Charles so they can’t really tell him to FO while he is paying the bills and I’m sure they are hefty between the rental, travel (some of which I’m sure is covered by those sponsoring the speaking engagements) staff, childcare etc. is all still being funded by Charlie.

      Secondly; I just don’t see a big tell all, I just don’t believe that is who they are as human beings (though we ALL would like to see the lid ripped off) and I don’t believe that it would actually do anything for their long term goals. YES, it would be an instant best selling (most viewed) book or interview, I just don’t see how it serves them in the long run.

      • Le4Frimaire says:

        Agree with this. You know who’s not in the press making statements every other day— the Sussexes. All these palace and press leaks, but they’re over in Canada doing their thing. And they are definitely doing. It was the Queen who said everything will be reviewed in a year, but now one month later they are changing things. I think whatever they name their foundation, production company etc, it will be fine because Harry and Meghan are the brand. Also, their way of working seems to be partnerships, and helping to boost other brands. The Brits, especially the press and palace, just need to get over it. They have 3 generations of Royal heirs right there in London. The Sussexes know their worth, always have. They are shifting their focus to the future.

  63. MellyMel says:

    If true, this is beyond petty and gross! Regardless of what anyone thinks, they are royals. Harry was royal the day he was born and will be until the day he dies. This family has waaaay bigger fish to fry, but yes, let’s continue to focus on H&M.

  64. MC2 says:

    If a Royal can only be all in or all out, then I guess they are letting us know that Andrew is still ALL IN.

  65. Feebee says:

    Your argument was the first thing that I thought of too. He’s still Royal. He’ll always be Prince Harry. It’s his absolute birthright as it stands. The Queen is really the woman who said nothing publicly for days after Diana’s death. For all the admiration I have for her work ethic, this is who she is and I’m truly over her and her pedo excusing family and courtiers.

  66. Bennem says:

    I’m a huge Sussex fan and feel they’ve been treated terribly by the RF, British press and public. I visit this site because it is one of the few pro-Sussex sites online.

    I noticed a few comments in this article mentioning that they are very popular and have a lot of public support. I just wondered where I could find these people? Every site with an open comment section seems to be flooded with negative comments. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to find many positive comments on their Instagram account. Are there any pro-Sussex comment sections online, or is it just Celebitchy?

    • GuestWho says:

      Sadly, this is about it – and even here the trolls are trying to infiltrate. You could try #sussexsquad on twitter. Stalwart supporters and excellent fact finders and receipt revealers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I think we’re standing up to the trolls well, GuestWho.

      • GuestWho says:

        notasugarhere – they are so obvious. Frustrating that they have to taint every site with hate.

      • notasugarhere says:

        We’ll just keep knocking them down and labeling their posts as t r o l l. They come in waves, they’ll leave soon enough when they realize CB and Kaiser won’t change their minds on their Meghan support.

    • MsIam says:

      You can’t measure their popularity by the comment sections because of the paid trolls. I dont do twiiter or IG but i read yahoo comments. If you click on some of the Harry -Meg hate troll names, you will see 30-40k or more comments. I call bullshit that is all from a regular-degular commentor. That is someone with a full time job commenting. I would say look at the impact they have on donations and awareness of the charities they support if you want to measure their popularity. Look at who is looking to meet and partner with them and who is speaking out on their behalf.

      • notasugarhere says:

        One of the original articles detailing Meghan’s abuse? Showed it mostly came from 20 people using multiple names on different sites, 80 percent of whom were outside the UK.

      • MeganBot2020 says:

        This is 100% true. I used to be on Mumsnet (which is overrun with insane Meghan hate), and it was very obviously the same half-dozen or dozen people posting under loads of different usernames. The moderators even posted warnings a bunch of times about how many Meghan-bashers were sockpuppeting, and how big a problem they had with some of the most overtly racist Meghan-bashers who keep trying to get around the ban by creating new accounts all the time. And those posters are NASTY. If you say a single positive word about Meghan they gang up on you, send you abusive PMs, try to doxx you, spam the thread with posts about how you’re stupid, clueless, a sheep, a Stan, all with the goal of bullying away anyone who doesn’t obsessively hate Meghan. And the stuff they say is beyond belief. They claim Archie is dead or never really existed, they swear that Meghan was a prostitute, that she has NPD, that Harry is not Charles’ son.

        I also noticed that more than once a M-B would start a thread on Mumsnet, and the exact same time someone would post the exact same thing (literally word for word copy and pasted) on like two or three other forums. Why would you copy and past the same post to three different forums, if not to troll?

        And I’ll tell you another thing, I’m 99.99% certain Samantha Grant was one of them. One time someone posted slagging off Thomas Markle and a poster flipped her lid and posted like 20 posts in a row screaming and swearing and calling that poster all kinds of nasty names, then four brand new usernames all popped up within the space of literally like ten minutes to back that person up and say “yes I agree, Poster is a nasty lying C-word.”

        On Datalounge too, there’s extreme Meghan hate, constantly dozens of threads literally calling her the N word, the W word, calling her a “monkey” and saying she should go back to Africa. But those posts only ever get maybe 6 likes, and whenever there’s a poll on Most Popular Royal, Meghan is always voted pretty high.

        I would not be surprised at all if most of the hate online aimed at Meghan is literally 10 or 20 mentally ill shut-ins spending 18 hours a day on their laptops, each with a couple of hundred different usernames.

      • baytampaBay says:

        I have spent a good deal of time on the DataLounge Site and to be fair, the commentariat of The DataLounge do not like Royals or titled Aristocrats. David Linley Snowdon, David Rocksavage Cholmondeley and Lord Ivar Alexander Michael Mountbatten are tolerated.

        The hate speech comments against Rose Hanbury are almost as bad as the hate speech comments against Meghan.

      • Calibration says:

        For years and years, it’s been obvious that the daily fail uses banks of trolls for comments. Often the wording is identical /very similar in all the ‘top’ rated comments (which they obviously manipulate). This has happened for as long as I can remember. It’s not reflecting actual normal people. Though I have good friends who are smart who still fall for the mail crap on H and M. Sadly.

      • PrincessK says:

        Wow! So Mumsnet is at it too?

        The Daily Mail bases a lot of its hate articles on Meghan from things they dig up on Twitter. Despicable. This newspaper used to be very decent back in the day. I hope that the Daily Mail owners one day feel they need to be cleansed of the filth and lies and kick the whole editorial board out.

      • carmen says:

        Mumsnet – I thought that was a Parenting site – a place to learn and share about teething problems, terrible twos and school angst.

        SMH…

  67. Hope says:

    They haven’t been deposed. So much wishful thinking in your post and you still don’t know what you’re talking about. If anything, the BRF is desperate to have them back.

  68. Maxie says:

    It’s petty AF but they only needed to keep the Sussex dukedom and they got it.

  69. Lizzie says:

    PH and MM are about to eclipse the Windsors globally and we are seeing desperate attempts to stop them.
    After they transition to a new brand I hope the sell the whatever SussixRoyal trademarks they own. After all it’s not theirs to use or protect. Maybe the queen would like to make a bid.

    • RedWeatherTiger says:

      I like the way you think.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I was thinking that as well. They could sell the trademark and domain name if they wanted to, especially since they can’t use it. They could, but they won’t and never will.

  70. lili/lirael/whatever says:

    He’ll not use them but Harry apparently keeps his military titles. It’s a good sign, right?

  71. paddingtonjr says:

    So, King Edward VIII abdicates, retains HRH, and is made a duke. Fergie divorces Andrew, loses HRH, but is still able to use “Duchess of York” title to shill everything from diet plans to china. Andrew consorts with a known pedophile and underage “masseuses”, retains HRH, “temporarily” loses some patronages, mummy still supports him. H&M ask to step back from full-time duties and concentrate on their family and charity, they are cast out and the BRF does all they can do to strip H&M of every remnant of their royal lives. But the joke’s on them; H&M will survive and thrive even if they have to live out their lives as Harry & Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. And, what the BRF doesn’t seem to realize is that, the more they take away from H&M, the less influence they have on them and the less incentive H&M have to return to the UK for “happy family” photo ops at public events. And the BRF just come off as petty spoiled tyrants.

  72. TheOriginalMia says:

    Omid just posted the latest info. They keep all their titles and will be back in the U.K. in March for a series of events. Harry will keep his military appointments and no one is being assigned his military patronages right now. No word on their foundation name, as plans are still being finalized.

    • Becks1 says:

      It sounds to me like the royal family is really banking on them coming back in a year.

      the only thing that gives me pause, as I’ve said before, is the weird story from a few months ago about the queen considering abdication (or naming Charles regent) around her 95th birthday, which would be approximately a year from when they officially step back. It makes me wonder if Charles is willing to give them the part time royal status the queen wont.

      • MsIam says:

        Yes Harry and Meghan come back so we can abuse you some more, lol! What do they say the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If I were them I wouldn’t even want to fly in U.K. airspace, I wouldn’t want to get that close to the rf.

      • Emmitt says:

        I am trying to understand why Harry & Meghan being PT royals is somehow bad and impossible to do, but William and Kate didn’t become full time royals until 2017. They were given 6 years to be a little family without all the royal work. Make it make sense.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Emmitt – the difference, as I recall (and I think you raise a good point) is that Will and Kate were still receiving sovereign grant money and were still financially dependent on Charles. I think William may have even donated his salary as a pilot? So while they were basically not even part time royals, they were still getting paid (And getting houses renovated, etc) and were not attempting to be “financially independent.” It appears the money is the issue, not the work.

  73. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Is anyone here a lawyer? Can the Queen stop anyone from trade marking a name with the word “royal” in it? Like, is “Crown Royal” liquor illegal in Britain? Or “Royal Tire”? And if so, then what about outside of Britain? Can Harry and Meghan trademark SussexRoyal in the USA? I would think they can.

    • Angie says:

      I’m a lawyer and no she cannot. In any event, she would have to sue for enforcement. That’s why I said earlier just use it. Is she really going to die Harry?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I wonder if QEII ever thought about suing Royal Dalton china company for impinging on her “Royal” status?

      • DM2 says:

        BayTampa — why would she when Royal Doulton were bestowed with their Royal warrant?

      • baytampaBay says:

        @DM2 – Because she did not bestow said warrant?

        Big Liz can get downright petty when she wants too! LOL!

    • DM2 says:

      Crown Royal whisky, a Canadian whisky, is already in the UK. You can call any business you want by putting “Royal” in the title, (like Royal Tire, or Royal Jiffy Lube), but you cannot claim to be representing the Queen or the Crown by doing so. And even then you might get some push back if it ever comes to light by the Crown.

      • MsIam says:

        I thought that is what the royal warrant is for? To show the stamp of approval. Is that on their IG account or website? I know their logo has the crown on it but that is the logo they designed right? Not the official logo of HM. The more you look into this, the more it seems like this is a bullshit story. Like someone said it was put out in the middle of the night in the U.K. so this was meant for the US/ Canada audience. The question is why? What are they trying to hide?

      • baytampaBay says:

        Revenue producing click$ for USD and CND is my theory.

        Maybe Normal Bill has a residual payment agreement with leaks to generate BPS for his Rose gardening hobby.

  74. bitchy architect says:

    I really really hope they have receipts. Its time to lay them out on the counter.

  75. NYCGirl says:

    Let’s be clear: This is all personal and vindictive by the RF. They want to make sure that Meghan and Harry’s popularity is NEVER a threat to the Monarch (Lizzie, Charlie or Baldy)! So they will strip them of everything little by little. The ONLY thing that is saving Meghan is her American Citizenship. They would be wise to NEVER go back to U.K….as an FYI, Baldy can’t handle the popularity of the Sussex Instagram acct. just take note of how much activity the Sussex Royal acct will get over KP acct on the same issues. It’s all petty BS but that’s what happens in this family. I believe Harry was naive to believe that his father would protect him but he’s learning that Charles cares about Charles….PERIOD. Another thing to take note of is the RF attack on the Sussex’s in the American media. It has been understated but in time it will be overt. Meghan/Harry have tremendous support in the US among some very powerful forces so the BRF will be testing their reach outside of Europe.

  76. Susan Montgomery says:

    They could use Sussex Royal if they want. Surely the word Royal and the the word Sussex are pretty generic and not owned by the royal family. I live in a city with a Sussex street, avenue and drive. There are several businesses located near these streets with Sussex in their name. There is a community that styles itself The Royal City, there is a Royal Centre Mall and a Royal City Mall. M & H should just thumb their noses at the Royal Family and do what they want.

  77. Guest with Cat says:

    Doggone it. I can’t seem to make out how to reply to all the well informed folks who have been correcting my errors in my salty rants. Anyway thank you to those who have set the record straight!

  78. iconoclast59 says:

    Maybe they can re-brand as “Sussex Regal”? Or a suitable antonym of “petty.”

  79. Lizzie says:

    Question for this community. What happens at the 1 year review if PH and MM have achieved all they hoped for yet the queen is not happy – she does not want Windsor brand outshone.
    Assuming they are financially independent do they make concessions?

  80. Emily Ayala says:

    I honestly don’t care whether they use it or not. They wanted to be free of that family and that backward thinking, so continue to move on. I am not British and I don’t follow monarchy rules. They wanted out. It was their decision and they will live their lives freely now. Toss the pantyhose and run free!

    • baytampaBay says:

      My Tin Foil Tiara Theory (TFTT) is that the future Charles III wants them back as full-time working Royals in the firm and QEII does not really care as long as she is able to live out her remaining years in peace and Royal splendor.

  81. J.Mo says:

    Unapologetic fan here but this doesn’t bother me, I think it’s reasonable and they don’t need it. They could be SussexFamily or something similar that makes a point and is more personal.

    • Tina says:

      Yes I thought that would be a good name, along the lines of many many other foundations, The Sussex Family Foundation. Avoid all the controversy that comes with the use of Royal.

      • baytampaBay says:

        @J.Mo and Tina – You are both so correct. This leak will backfire on the Royal Firm like all the other leaks and poor PR moves have done in the past per “Rose Who”! LOL! LOL!

  82. What. . .now? says:

    I think the BRF better stock up on some damn sunscreen SPF 1000, because once PH and MM launch their foundation and hit the ground running with their plans they will shine so brightly as to burn the others into ash.

    They WILL be global superstars–and their projects, charities and initiatives will eclipse a little 5 question survey and a garden and some lame ass environmental prize that William announced. I expect some behind the scenes groveling for PH and MM to shine their light back on the RF, because let’s face it, the BRF sucks at this sort of stuff. Sure ribbon cuttings, and plaque unveilings they are great–but global initiatives? Even national initiatives that actually have concrete results? Not so much.

    I believe the RR’s and the BRF are going to gobsmacked at just how popular they are combined with how much actual good they do.

    The Obama’s production company just won an Oscar for one of their documentaries–it is not out of the realm of possibility to think that in 5 years we see PH and MM accept their own award for a documentary that they worked really hard on. But what would be especially delicious is if it won a BAFTA too–be on that stage and accept that award in front of the royal patrons of do-nothingness. ha ha!

    • Nyro says:

      I wish there was a “Like” button because I’d push it a thousand times for this comment. The BRF are basic locals and now Harry and Meghan are about to be global excellence. There’s no other way of putting it. They’ve already outshone the rest of the family and now they’ll be totally unleashed. Invictus on steroid. SmartWorks on steroids. South African tour on steroids. It really just goes to show how utterly stupid the BRF is. All they had to do what manage their jealousy and embrace what H&M were doing. All they had to do was openly stand up for Meghan against the British press. It was all so simple but they couldn’t manage because they’re a bunch of stupid and jealous dimwits. They have no idea what they’ve done to themselves. These are the same people who thought Princess Diana’s funeral wouldn’t fill Westminster Abbey. Princess friggin’ Diana. Clueless clowns, every last one of them.

  83. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Well BP just released a full schedule of Harry and Meghan’s last royal events with no mention of a change in their titles so… once again the DM drops a story as a distraction and everyone falls for it.

  84. Gatorlover says:

    Could it be that certain factions want to forbid use of the SussexRoyal name because that Instagram account is about to surpass KensingtonRoyal in followers (both currently at 11.2m)?

    • Tina says:

      I think the proposal is reasonable- they can be Sussex Family Foundation. Anyways it is inevitable that the Sussexes will have more followers regardless of what they brand. I doubt this was a consideration in removing royal from the name.

  85. aquarius64 says:

    The Fail doesn’t mention they keep all their titles and that royal is still under debate. Chris Ship is reporting Sussex Royal is done.

  86. Liz version 700 says:

    They could be just Sussex or “Foundation to help Archie’s World” M&H anonymous, Not with Andrew, Any foundation will be recognizable and supported because they are who they are and the Windsor’s will melt down because they who they always have been.

  87. baytampaBay says:

    My Tin Foil Tiara Theory (TFTT) is that the future Charles III wants them back as full-time working Royals in the firm and QEII does not really care as long as she is able to live out her remaining years in peace and Royal splendor.

  88. GuestOne says:

    A former BBC royal reporter was suggesting that door has been left ajar because whilst half in half out was turned down now it may look more appealing next year when the Queen is even older. Apparently his honorary military titles are on pause- won’t currently be filled until possibly after the year review. Blatantly the family were aware that people were asking about Andrew’s honorary titles.

    Also reminds me that despicable PM Boris Johnson wanted that private chat with Harry during his last engagement. That Shipman exile to Africa piece did suggest government officials were working with the palace on how to harness the Sussexes appeal.

    At the same time the Torygraph has a heading about how the door has been left open for the Duke. Again that signal they will welcome Harry alone with open arms.

  89. Izzy says:

    They should name it The Princess Diana Family Foundation. The nonce-lovers would have a stroke.

  90. Calibration says:

    I wonder if they should dump the name Sussex from their work in case their ducal titles could be taken away by a future monarch (tho I’m unsure of that, but it’s been suggested).

    However, I guess by then they’ll be too big for it to matter? Just random thoughts.

    This does seem like a double standard but honestly, what do you expect? My opinion is their biggest mistake was showing their hand publicly way too early with the website. Negotiations were going on behind the scenes, sure the sun aka KP spilled the tea but they didn’t have to show everything they wanted. I think it weakened them. Collaborating (I think that’s what they said) with the queen was glaring and ill advised, it would have put lots of noses out of joint) . They should go their own way now, dropping anything they don’t have in writing (that can’t be rescinded). I think they’ll be stronger for it.

  91. PrincessK says:

    The Palace is so afraid of the power and potential of Harry and Meghan. The British media is going into overdrive with their anger at how the Sussexes are slipping away from them. The Daily Mail is manipulating public opinion like mad, they said that on Twitter everyone is happy that Sussex Royal is being taken away, which is blatantly untrue. They copied and pasted a couple of anti Meghan twitter comments but did not bother to mention the thousands of positive tweets in support of the Sussexes. Evidence that the print media uses social media content to spread bile, just like in the Caroline Flack case.

    Earlier this week I suffered and listened to Becky English on the radio, doing her best to stir the pot against the Sussexes and telling porky pies about the manner in which the 15 staff left. Then today we had that Vine woman, who now seems to be on the payroll of Sky saying that she is sure that the Sussexes future plans in Canada are going to end in failure. And just now I have had to listen to the awful Daily mail editor, a regular on Sky insinuate that the Palace is holding the door open for Harry to return, by still allowing him to be HRH, and then he went on to say hopefully without Meghan. These people are absolutely dreadful, hounding them whatever they do. We must loudly and vociferously continue to support the Sussexes!

    • carmen says:

      What did Vine have to say about Canada? I’m curious because people seem to be quite positive about their presence here and there’s been very little negative talk that I’ve noticed.

      • PrincessK says:

        Vine said that the reality of their new life in Canada is going to be harsh. Which I think is a very nasty and wicked thing to say. These ‘royal’ hangers on who make their living off them are really praying for them to fail. I have never seen anything like it, it makes me sick. They should be so ashamed of themselves, these so called royal reporters and biographers, they are revealing their monstrous true colours. It is as though they are boiling over with anger that the Sussexes are escaping from their clutches.

        Diana is definitely turning in her grave. When she passed on, along with many other mothers’ I pledged to watch over her sons’ , and Harry needs our support more than ever in these very vicious times, and during the next couple of weeks when they will be exposed to these wolves yet again. Harry mentioned ‘dark forces’ at work.

      • Nic919 says:

        Meghan recently lived in Canada until two years ago. She will certainly be fine here. Harry may need to adjust more, but so far he seems to be doing ok.

      • carmen says:

        Thanks PrincessK – that Vine is a real piece of work. I hope she stays in the UK and doesn’t venture over here.

    • Deering24 says:

      Sheesh. “Harsh life?” Does Vine think H&M will be subsisting off beaver hunting and teaching Archie to ice fish? I am continually amazed at how much of the RP seems to still think the “ Empire” outside of Britain is still stuck in the 1890s.

  92. Belly says:

    SO petty, so nasty.

    It’s akin to scratching the CDs of your ex-partner who dumped you. The Queen is losing her decorum in her old age.

    • GuestOne says:

      Can’t remember last time I saw so many including in the media openly wanting a family to split up.

      Sarah vine is so horrible. She did a piece on Kate back in the day that was so vicious even the Guardian had a piece defending Kate. She had the ‘niggling’ feeling over Meghan& Harry’s engagement photo& mum shamed Meghan about leaving Archie to go to NYC for the US open. Even though was reported her young child was once found wandering around a hotel asking for his parents because her and equally horrid politician husband had gone out on a piss up (no judgement on parents having fun but the hypocrisy stinks).

      Her and Andrew Pierce write for the Fail so given Meghan is suing their employer& the Sussexes won’t work with the Fail as part of the royal rota anymore, they are even more bitter.

  93. Ann Pearl Owen says:

    What has the queen done about Royal Canin dog food? I know someone whose middle name is Royal and hasn’t heard from the queen on it yet. Do queen bees in the UK feed their babies royal jelly? Has she sued the online game Realm Royale or McDonald’s in France where the Burger Royale is sold? Give us a break. She doesn’t own the exclusive right to use of the word Royal anywhere she’s not the queen. She’s so busy trying to do stuff for her pedophile son that I’m surprised she even cares about anything related to Harry & Meghan. jmo

  94. blunt talker says:

    I am not worried about the royal family’s nastiness and petty minds. Harry and Meghan knew this could be a possibility. A back-up plan is somewhere in the works. What do people think with any brains what Harry and Meghan were doing the 6 weeks away and coming back to announce a step-down from royal duties. Harry knows the downright nastiness of his family. I see a fairy godperson for this family in the future going forward. I think they have deals and working assignments already . They need to wait until the end of March 31st. They were not at Sanford for the scenery believe me. They will use the smartest and brightest to get their new life off the ground.

  95. Aa says:

    They didn’t have dinner with specifically Arod and Jlo. They were seated next to them at a dinner event.

  96. MsIam says:

    If that “family” is attacking your partner then distancing yourself (among other things) is the ONLY thing that makes sense. Family needs to act like family in more than just words. But then again, they are not a family but a “Firm” remember?

  97. Sofia says:

    What a shitty comment. Just say you don’t like Harry and Meghan, want them to fail and go. Say it with your chest.

  98. GuestWho says:

    Do you also maintain that people should stay in abusive relationships?

  99. GuestWho says:

    …and he’s been trying to break away from that toxic family for, literally, a decade. Harry didn’t distance himself at the advent of a new relationship. He distanced himself when he clearly saw that his ridiculous, racist, jealous family was going to continue to use the press as a weapon against his wife and son after YEARS of abuse. Staying in that situation would have been a bigger red flag about his relationship with his wife.

    I suppose this whole “Harry is going to dump her” is today’s Twitter/tumblr-concern-troll talking point. I don’t understand why it is so difficult for you people to recognize an obviously loving and respectful relationship/partnership – maybe you’ve never been involved in one. You’re projecting either what you would do to a significant other or what one has done to you, and that’s just sad. I feel for you.

  100. notasugarhere says:

    Another brand new name on here with the same old, same old tumblr tripe.

    Glad we all see you for what/who you really are.

    Ladies, remember to simply label a troll ‘troll’ in the reply, which helps Kaiser find-and-delete.

  101. Mich says:

    You think he is going to choose life in the gilded cage he hated over the mother of his child? Yeah. No.

  102. kerwood says:

    @Patrizio, Edo is that you?

    Last time I checked, Jennifer Lopez and Alexander Rodriguez are successful and respected members of their professions. But I can understand why they wouldn’t be on the Queen’s list of acceptable dining companions that include grifters, sex offenders and child traffickers.

    It’s interesting that you think Harry’s going to ‘throw away’ his bi-racial wife as if she were disposable. Will he throw away his bi-racial child too? And then return to Little England, marry an ‘English Rose’ and have a REAL family? That seems to be a theme among so many people just like you, who seem to believe that Harry couldn’t REALLY love a Black woman, that he’s just using her. Meghan Markle is the most intelligent, accomplished woman he’s ever been with. He married way above himself. And above his brother too.

    Oh, and the Queen can’t ‘put the screws’ to anybody. She’s not allowed to by law and she’s busy right now. She’s protecting her sex offender son and ordering porta-potties for her grand-daughter’s backyard wedding. Now that’s ROYAL.

  103. Jaded says:

    You do realize Harry and Meghan did not leave for selfish reasons, they left because Wm created an atmosphere of unrelenting toxicity, racism and leaking to the BM so they could ramp up attacks and threats against Meghan and the baby. HER LIFE WAS BEING THREATENED. She was pregnant and post-partum while this was happening daily. The BRF basically turned their backs and continued through KP and BP courtiers to attack them for everything.

    Furthermore, they are not courting Hollywood and they are not BFFs with JLo and ARod, they sat adjacent to them at a dinner. They are a hard-working and utterly devoted couple who had simply had enough of the lies, intrigue and selfish conspiracies rampant in the f*cking family. You sound like you take joy in furthering the vicious falsehoods you read in those idiotic social media sites. Always look for the good in people, it will bring good energy into yours.

  104. Nyro says:

    Oh, and the Obamas actually count Alex and Jennifer as friends. But they’re not snobs. Truly great people don’t have to look down on or try to discredit others in order to stand in their greatness. Which is why the British royal family iis a joke.

  105. Shirleygailgal says:

    @GuestWho…I think you’re lovely and kind and smart. Your last paragraph/last two sentences are loving and kind. You are a better person for your attitude. As harry and Meghan ask us: be kind…sometimes it’s really hard to do.

  106. GuestWho says:

    @Shirleygailgal – Thank you. I had to edit those last two sentences a number of times! I do try to be as nice as I can – with varying degrees of success. ;)

  107. Lovely comment GuestWho. Speaking from experience, the right significant other in your life can change your whole way of being and thinking for the better. I know I am blessed in my relationship. It’s sad to obviously see it in Harry and Meghan and yet others are desperate for them to crash and burn. What a sad sad little world those individuals must live in to want that for anyone.

  108. Ariela says:

    Come on, ,no need for this. Meghan is indeed intelligent and accomplished, but so was (is) Chelsy. No need for these comparisons.

  109. kerwood says:

    @Ariela, It’s not my job to cape for Chelsy. All I know about her is at she likes to party. A LOT. Chelsy was born rich and White so people will ALWAYS defend her.

  110. Col says:

    Yes, point to someone who admits she doesn’t know anything about Chelsy, but she knows she’s not as intelligent or accomplished as Meghan. Meanwhile Chelsy has Two degrees, plus a diploma from the Gemology institute of America.

    I don’t see her messing up left, right and centre like H+M.

  111. Olenna says:

    Facts are facts, @Col. In terms of having a viable career and working for good causes, your girl is not as as accomplished as the DoS. And, the degrees? You’re making your girl sound like a professional student, not a responsible adult contributing to society. When you return, it would be interesting to see *your* list of Sussex mistakes, or was that just a throw away troll comment?

  112. Col says:

    Not everyone does charity just for the cameras.

  113. notasugarhere says:

    Ah, so Col has outed themselves as a Chelsy obsessive? Now all the Meghan bashing makes sense.

  114. (TheOG)jan90067 says:

    I just did that to flag it. Funny how there are SO MANY new names ONLY in the H&M posts, isn’t it? Did RD shut down? Usually so many of them vent their spleen there. (I looked in there, once, years ago…it was so toxic and venomous even then I never looked back! YIKES!)

  115. Becks1 says:

    @TheOG yes I just said that above! lots of new names, only in the H&M posts, and all parroting RD talking points. It almost seems like someone is mad that there is a relatively pro-Sussex site here.

  116. BayTampaBay says:

    What is RD?

  117. GuestWho says:

    You’re dim enough to believe that what they have to offer is crap with their names on it and that’s their plan to raise funds for their foundation? Jeeebus. And using her given name as though it is an insult or some grand reveal is a dead give away that you are a troll.

    Go back to Twitter, and tell them you failed.

  118. They were seated next to them at the banking event Harry spoke at. Geeze, now lets make it like they are out partying privately with JLo so they can’t be taken seriously and it somehow makes them less than what you have determined they should be. Who put you in charge of their private life?

  119. Col says:

    Yeah, and Meghan ditched her “little people” friends.

  120. Olenna says:

    @Col, just stop with the trolling. You don’t a d*mn thing about her friends other than what the tabloids have printed.

  121. Olenna says:

    Edit: “don’t know”

  122. Col says:

    Yes but those same tabloids, ie the DM are sourced and quoted here constantly if they can be used against those this site hates. I ie, William be criticized for being “incandescent with rage” at H+M leaving as reported in the DM. (as only one example of many.) People here claim to hate the DM but half the royal reporting on this site is a regurgitation of it, but y’all are too thick/wacked out to notice or care. Also, any rumor, such as william having an affair with rose, as taken at face value without evidence. If the same was done to H+M, people would say it’s a lie and demand proof, as they should.

    Anyway, done with this topic.

  123. notasugarhere says:

    Sure you are Col.