I will continue to point this out for eternity: royal protocol is whatever British editors and reporters pretend it is. It’s make-believe. There is no set of rules governing nail polish, hosiery, interviews, public speaking, hairstyles, skirt lengths, bump-touching or trousers. There’s no book of Royal Protocol which we could all sit down and read together. These are rules which are made up and used to attack royal women, and these non-existent “rules” used to smear and insult one particular woman for several years.
I bring this up because of the news this week about the Queen (Liz of House Petty) likely revoking the “royal” from Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan’s Sussex-Royal branding. The same old people are making the same old arguments, that “there are rules” and (my personal favorite) “it’s the law!” It’s the law that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex can’t use the “Sussex Royal” name for their Instagram, seriously? But it’s what people believe because they want to believe it. Which brings me to this Vanity Fair piece which was not written by Katie Nicholl, but does feature an “interview” with Nicholl. It’s about royal-branding and who gets to profit from their royal connections and who doesn’t. They recap the Peter Phillips-Chinese-milk-ad situation, and here is an excerpt:
Just who in the royal family is allowed to cash in? While “rules” around royal life may seem especially cloak and dagger these days, the boundary around who can and can’t take on advertising work is pretty simple, says V.F.’s royal correspondent Katie Nicholl. “If you are a working royal, then you don’t get to embark on commercial deals because there’s just simply too much of a conflict,” she says. So what’s a working royal? That’d be “a member of the royal family who carries out engagements on behalf of the royal family and the queen. They are a representative of Her Majesty the Queen, and they’re the HRH, the royal title,” Nicholl explains.
Peter Phillips and Lady Kitty Spencer are not working royals and don’t carry HRH designations… Other non-working royals are welcome to and do take on commercial work; Zara Tindall, Phillips’ sister, has held endorsements or partnerships with Land Rover, Rolex, clothing brand Musto, and iCandy, a line of strollers.
You needn’t be deeply entrenched with royal protocol to grasp why Phillips’ milk ad was so grating, of course. “It just feels tacky, and it feels like a conflict of interest, and it feels very much like they are cashing in on their royal connections,” Nicholl said. “Whether or not they’re HRH, they’re related to the queen. They are members of the royal family and they’re using that for their own commercial gain.” In promoting her Chinese milk, Spencer suggested milk was part of the morning routine of any royal, and “I just think that sort of thing just had courtiers choking on their cornflakes,” Nicholl said.
The reason the milk ad made such a splash, Nicholl suspects, is because it happened in the middle of the Harry and Meghan saga. But even without the Sussex Royal branding to promote them, the Duke and Duchess aren’t likely to do anything quite so tacky. “I think what you will see is their projects, their interests, their charities, affiliating themselves with powerful conglomerates and corporations—people who can pay to have them, and pay to…put international spotlight on the issues that they want to put them on,” Nicholl says.
Building a financial war chest seems to be Harry and Meghan’s goal at present, with the chief aim of making sure they can steer their charitable efforts in precisely the way they want. Despite the separation, “[H]e is still a Prince of England and she is still the Duchess of Sussex,” Nicholl says. “They will be acutely aware and will be treading very cautiously ahead of and around signing any deals.”
So, the new rule is “If you are a working royal, then you don’t get to embark on commercial deals because there’s just simply too much of a conflict,” and a working royal is anyone who does events on behalf of the crown. Which begs the question, just how many personal business deals did His ROYAL Highness Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, work on when he was a working royal? Dozens, if not hundreds. No one has any idea how thoroughly Andrew profited from his title and his position as a British trade ambassador. And if it’s such a conflict of interests for a royal to use their title or royal-status to fundraise for charity… why does Prince Charles have the Duchy Originals line? It’s even named after one of his titles, the Duke of Cornwall. And Prince Charles has corporate sponsorship for The Prince’s Trust too. So, once again, people are just making sh-t up as they go along.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, WENN.
Princess Michael also comes to mind.
Honest question: is it because H&M are no longer inside the royal family institution, and they want to build a brand separate from it? So, not under the firm’s control or coffers? Or maybe because they’ll delve into political issues that won’t be managed to align with the firm, but will still be associated with it due to the royal connection?
Kristina … it’s because of racism.
The fact they mention Lady Kitty Spencer as a non-working royal shows they have no idea what they are talking about.
100%
Exactly.
exactly.
+1 she was never any kind of royal
@Maria I don’t know much about her or the side characters of the family. can you explain?
@Sarah – she’s just not a member of the royal family. She’s a member of the aristocracy, obviously, and she has “connections” to the royal family by virtue of being Will and Harry’s cousin and Diana’s niece, but she doesn’t have any immediate royal blood ties to the Queen. (I say “immediate” bc I think the Spencer bloodline does have some royal ties, but I’m not sure when or through whom.)
I don’t know how far I would go currently in determining the “royal family” – maybe just descendants of George V? Maybe just the current queen and her children/grandchildren? Victoria had so many children and descendants and while some have royal blood, I don’t think most people would consider them part of the “royal family.”
But Kitty Spencer is definitely not a royal.
ETA are there two Sarahs? I don’t understand this question compared to the comments below.
I think the “royal family” are the HRHs. They are the “royals.” Anyone who doesn’t have an “HRH” title (like Anne’s children) are not part of the “royal family.” Yes, they are still “blood relatives” and “family” members, just not “royal family” members. It’s hard for an American like me to comprehend how to cut off someone by virtue of a title, but that’s how they delineate between royalty and non-royalty. And the word “working” royal means nothing, other than for public relations purposes. An “HRH” is royal no matter how much or how little they work. Again, “royal”; “working royal”; “family member”; even “in line for succession” mean nothing with respect to who is royal — royalty is designated by the “HRH.”
@mrs Crabapple, no I don’t think what you saying is accurate. None of Edwards kids is styled HRH but they ARE royal. Archie, 7th in line to the throne, is not styled HRH but he IS royal. Prince and Princess Michael are styled HRH, so you mean to say these two are royal but Archie, Louise and James are not?
The only HRHs over the age of 18 that are non-working royals are The Michael Kents, The York Princess and after 31 March 2020 The D&D of Sussexes.
HRH princess Alexandra and Katherine, HRH The Duchess of Kent are part-time semi-retired working Royals due to age and/or health.
The non working Royals receive no direct subsidies from the Sovereign Grant.
If you are an HRH then you are a member of the BRF. If you are a descendant of George V you are a member of the House of Windsor.
@BabsORIG – Yes, as strange as it sounds, the Prince and Princess Michael are royalty, but Archie, Louise, and James (and Zara and Peter) are not.
@Mrs.Krabapple – I must disagree a little her. Archie is not a HRH because he is a great-grandson of the monarch and QEII did not issue special letter patent as she did for Charlotte & Louis. If or when Charles ascends the throne Archie will automatically be an HRH unless Charles issues new letters patent superseding the George V 1917 Letters Patent.
Louise and James are HRHs but at the request of the Wessexes and with AGREEMENT of QEII they are “styled” and raised (i.e treated like by us commoners and peasants) as children of an Earl while children
When Louise and James reach the age of 18 they may request to be styled and treated as HRHs. Louise and James could choose to forgo the use of HRH as did Princess Patricia of Connaught who did use her HRH or Princess Antonia of Germany, the current Duchess of Wellington, who does not use her HIH or the Duke and Duchess of Sussex who will not use their HRH after 31 March 2020.
By virtue of being “royal”, either by being accidentally born to the right family or marrying into it, they spend their lives “cashing” in on their royal status – palaces, bodyguards, a life of extravagance, luxury and power, all offered to them because of their “royal” status. The whole system is disgusting, milk ads and commercial ventures are only the tip of the iceberg.
Agree with this 100%
People need to stop with the milk ads. This guy didn’t ask to be Anne’s son. He’s saddled with that horrible family and he doesn’t receive tax money, so he needs to find whatever work he can. Working class people do commercials. And besides, this is what happens when you have a monarchy in the first place — people will cash in on it. Whether it’s Princess Michael, Prince Charles, The Daily Mail, Amazon, The Royal Mews Shop, or Peter Phillips. If people don’t like it, get rid of the monarchy.
He openly merched off his granny’s Jubilee. How do people keep defending him?
Seems to me QEII (aka his granny) allowed him to merch.
It really is no different that cutting the grass at your dead granny’s house while it is up for sale and sending a bill to the Executor/Executrix of her estate.
BTB, letting him merch off his tax-supported granny’s tax-funded Jubilee is different than cutting the lawn. He ended up in serious public trouble over it.
He lives for free on Crown’s property, which is supported by… tax money!
@ Bay — ok, I’m still laughing over the image of “member of the royal family” toiling with a push mower for hours.
@nota – I agree with all you say. I was just trying be snarky. The point I was trying to make is that certain members of the BRF and House of Windsor are allowed to merch and other members are not. There is no rhyme or reason to it and it is pretty disgusting.
I think mowing your dead granny’s grass and sending an invoice to the estate is disgusting too. I should know as a member of my family actually did as such.
@Krabapple, I agree with you here. Peter does not recieve any money from taxpayers, he needs to make a living, I do not see anything wrong with the milk ad. Whether he mentioned royalty in the ad or not, he got the deal because of who his grandmother is. That is the big elephant in the room, he can’t help it. Milk is harmless, it could have been worse.
I don’t understand what difference a word makes. Whether or not they are HRH or ‘Royal’. They should simply use Harry & Megan and they will have the same response from people who all know who they are. I do read comments in different online media and the people seem to resent that Megan is an insta-royal and “wants her cake and eat it too” . If I were her, I’d dump the ducal coronet and just keep Harry & Megan.
@krabapple. Zara, Peter and their children and Archie are non titled royals. They are royals and of ‘blue’ ( royal) blood, because of who their parents and grandparents are. The fact that they turned down a title does not suddenly make them commoners or not belonging to the BRF. HRH is held by both working royals and non working royals. infact all cash in on their HRH,blatantly. Have you seen, the souvenir shops? Where do you think all the monies from the sales go? Infact the term, recieving royalties from sales, may have come from royals cashing in on their titles.There is a Ghanaian proverb that goes; ‘A Crab cannot give birth to a Bird’ It is self explanatory. Hrh, is not the only indicator of being royal. If you qualify to be on the balcony for family events, then you are part of the BRF.HRH is just an extra title, given by the queen. By the way all of these untitled royals live in Palaces and enjoy all the royal benefits, apart from money from the taxpayer, don’t be fooled. .So by your illogical logic; Zara and Peter, children of Princess Royal; Anne, and grandchildren of The Queen, because they turned down titles,, therefore are, not members of The BRF? As I said earlier; ‘ A Crab, cannot give birth to a Bird’. By the way,, Archie, though untitled, is 7th in line. He is in line of succession that is an obvious indicator of royalty.
Did Kitty Spencer do a mile commercial too?? I thought only Peter Phillips did one and yeah it was pretty cheesy.
It appears that it’s fine to make money off of one’s royal connections as long as one is white.
The fact that they mention Kitty Spencer shows that the authors don’t know anything about the BRF. Kitty is Diana’s niece, she’s not a royal at all.
I know! Do magazines no longer employ proofreaders??
Comment twins! haha
Kitty is as royal as Pippa.
@Maria hahaha
Isn’t that crazy that we both spotted the mistake in less than five minutes meanwhile nobody at VF apparently did? Journalistic standards are worringly low nowadays.
Yeah she did a milk commercial too but she’s also not royal so really can do as she pleases.
What is it with these milk ads and non-royals? Is it a magic potion that they’ll hope will convert them to royalty? And that is a big glaring error, Kitty Spencer is an aristocrat not a royal.
And the cars they all seem to drive???? I’m sure they ‘pay’ for them but seriously, there’s no quid pro quo? Not to mention that business can promote themselves as the official supplier of XYZ to HRH The Queen. It’s not sponsorship as such but there’s a clear relationship that the business benefits by.
Yep. Wanna bet all of the Senior working royals dodgy as hell around business and finance. Sarah Ferguson has been cashing in on her royal adjacent status for over twenty years and her sole purpose was to make money.
What is it about Harry and Meghan that is so scary or is it more bs from the press? Or both.
Excellent point. It’s not a coincidence that all of them have Range Rovers &/or Land Rovers and are pictured driving them for any official appearances in the UK and overseas.
The answer to the headline is that NO royal should be cashing in on their titles. Disgusting, the lot of them.
The article says “Peter Phillips and Lady Kitty Spencer are not working royals”. Showing their absolute ignorance right out of the gate: Kitty Spencer is not a non-working royal, she is not a royal AT ALL. She’s just Princess Diana’s niece.
I don’t get the whole “working royals are designated by the HRH” and can’t make private money, because Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals, yet they’re HRH, and they have jobs outside the firm where they make money for themselves. Andrew stepped down from being a working royal, yet he’s still HRH. And even when he was an HRH, he was making personal money. So we’re Fergie and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. All were HRH working royals. Make it make sense. Make it consistent.
And if Harry and Meghan aren’t going to be working royals, and aren’t going to use HRH (because HRH designates a working royal, supposedly, in some cases) then why is it a big deal that they want to make money? They just, in this article, said that it was fine that Peter made money for himself off of his royal connection, using the word royal multiple times in his ad, and that was tacky, but fine and legal and not against the rules. Harry and Meghan, when they’re not working royals and not using their HRH, want to make money FOR CHARITY using the word royal, but that’s illegal suddenly?
They’re making up rules and norms, trying to justify the things that are happening to Harry and Meghan, and they’re hoping that we’re all really ill informed and will just believe what they say. It sounds much more like there aren’t really any laws, rules, norms, or protocols, and the Queen just decides things willy nilly and then people try to come up with a justification that will make it make sense. It doesn’t make sense because it’s just the Queen doing whatever she wants.
HRH has never designated a working Royal. The only people it has ever been taken from in the past were people who were not born with it, but got it through marriage. The article doesn’t say that everything was fine with what Peter did. It puts a clear distinction between Zara’s sponsorship deals and the tacky nature of Peter’s commercial. I doubt very much that he’ll do anything like that again.
Harry and Meghan aren’t using their HRH so that the public won’t be confused about their status as working Royals. If they had never been working Royals then it never would have become an issue. All the issues were rules by parliament that the family agreed to follow. They were created after Edward and Sophie were forced to become working Royals when they were accused of cashing in on their titles. If everyone is going to be mad about what is happening with Harry and Meghan then they should be mad at parliament for making the rules not the Queen for following them.
Do we know how Beatrice and Eugenie are referred to when they are working at their jobs? Does the promotional material list their HRH? We don’t have any actual answers to this because it would make a big difference if the HRH is being mentioned when Beatrice is using her connections for a private enterprise.
Up until recently this wasn’t an issue because women born with HRH never worked. And no male HRH bothered working either.
Really this argues for the Swedish system where HRHs only go to the one specifically working as royals.
The Afiniti website lists her as Beatrice York. So, I don’t think she uses her titles at work. I agree that HRH should become a designator for working Royals. It would make everything easier. Then again, it’s usually given at birth. So, that’s difficult because Beatrice and Eugenie grew up thinking they would be working Royals. So, that system was in kind of in place. Times changed and they adjusted, but is is fair to strip them of their titles? Maybe, in the future, it should be given later? Like when they become an official working member?
The Swedish had a difficult time because, for a time, it was Maddie’s kid who was the heir after Victoria. So, they got titled accordingly. The King thinks his son, Carl, was robbed and that he should be the heir and so his kids were given titles because it wasn’t “fair” not to since his younger sisters kids were titled. So, everyone ended up overly titled lol. Maddie definitely liked the freedom of them losing the titles, but Carl was not so happy. I wish they followed other Monarchies here because their drama isn’t quite so serious and more fun to talk about.
@Ainsley – I was thinking that earlier. If HRH is becoming such an issue and they are insisting that only working royals get it, then maybe the letters patent should be changed to reflect that, and its not something you are entitled to at birth. It may not be such an issue in the future – right now the only young HRHs are the Cambridges, right? And depending on when George and Louis have kids, their kids likely will be entitled to HRH anyway (as grandchildren in the male line of the monarch). The tricky part will be if they have kids while Charles is still on the throne. I think under the new letters patent all of George’s kids would be entitled to HRH, but not Louis’ kids? (assuming Charles is still on the throne.)
so that is really the issue – are Louis’ kids going to be entitled to HRH even if William is on the throne? By that point it will be up to William and I wonder what he will do.
As the George V 1917 Letters Patent stand now, all of George’s and Louis’s children will be HRH if and when William ascends the throne. Charlotte’s children will not be British HRHs because she is female and it is only grandchildren in male line that are entitled to be styled HRH.
@Bay – right, I said that 🙂 My point is that it will be interesting if they have kids while Charles is on the throne (if he lives that long), or if something changes with the letters patent.
@Becks1 – What will be interesting to me is if Charlotte has children while Charles is alive but George does not. Since the change in the succession laws Charlotte and her offspring have become much more important. Charles III either needs to go Swedish Style or get rid of the sexism and make all grandchildren HRHs. If I were the Sovereign of The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I would go Swedish Style for many reasons.
What they’re doing now to Harry and Meghan is paving the way for the removal of HRH from Charlotte and Louis. Now, before they notice the difference. They will not be working royals, will be sent out to earn a living.
@nota – I buy your argument that is what courtiers (and Willaim???) may want but it makes no sense if it is true that Charles did not want Harry & Meghan to leave.
No matter who wants it, the precedent is set. Strip the two younger kids of HRH and possibly even titles. No reason for them to have them if only the first born will be a working royal.
Been nosing about and seems that Beatrice is profiled/marketed as HRH Princess Beatrice when representing her company at forums https://www.wict.org/bio/hrh-princess-beatrice-of-york/ and http://www.globalthinkersforum.org/people/hrh-princess-beatrice-of-york/ and possibly because she was meeting Pakistan’s PM was referred to as a Princess here https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/princess-beatrice-in-pakistan-for-a-heli-skiing-trip-with-international-politicians-1.981442
Same with Eugenie referred to HRH Princess Eugenie’s at event to discuss her gallery’s exhibition as well as her passions etc https://chinatown.co.uk/en/events/60-minutes-with-hrh-princess-eugenie-at-china-exchange/
@Nota- the precedent is set that they can leave if they want to. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they would not be allowed to be working Royals if they wanted. It would be better to no longer grant HRH at birth and give it later when they start working. The firm wants Harry back. You just can’t tell because the family is so dysfunctional.
@guestone- with all those sources it isn’t clear if Beatrice and Eugenie are using their titles or if it’s just the source using them. They can’t really stop others from using their titles. I looked up Eugenie at Hauser and Wirth and she is listed as Eugenie York just like Beatrice. So, I don’t think it was their choice to use their titles in those instances and not really fair to blame them.
They’re setting the precedent only the heir is a working royal, not the spare. That means Charlotte and Louis won’t be working royals. It will be a tough sell to try to say they should be working royals, after this Harry/Meghan situation.
If the HRHs are being used to market Beatrice and Eugenie it doesn’t really matter if B and E told them they could use it or not, they are still using it for commercial purposes. A reasonable person is not going to know that it was unauthorized. Clearly no one is punishing them for merching the use of HRH or being careless in letting others assume they can use the HRH for commercial endeavours.
@ amy google Royal Warrants andyou might get a better idea. I tried to give you some links but……..
And even if Zara isn’t a “working royal” she is still supported by the crown second-hand. She and her family live on property that was gifted to her mother by the Queen.
When we talk about socioeconomic status and poverty, particularly in conversations about how to educate children, we talk about the “hidden rules” of education. Schools and school systems are largely middle-class institutions, with rules and expectations that follow white, middle-class norms. If you are white and middle-class, you learn the rules early on through your family, friends, attendance at religious rituals, etc. Children who come from poverty, and this is especially true for children of color, don’t know these hidden rules and are rarely taught them. One of the expectations of a culturally-proficient teacher is to reveal the hidden rules, and teach kids how to practice them so they can succeed in the middle class institutions. For instance, many kids from the middle class have been taught at some point how to take notes in class. They know not to write every word; they know to write down words the teacher repeats or underlines; they know how to ask the teacher to slow down if he is going too fast; they know how to keep notes organized in a binder so they can find them later for studying. Kids coming from poverty, particularly children of color, don’t know these rules, and unless someone shows them how to take notes and supports them as they practice the process, they will likely not be successful in high school, which then impacts their chances of going to college or pursuing a professional path.
All this to say, the British Royal Family as an institution has hidden rules. Kids brought up within the system know the rules, are taught the rules, and everyone else has to be mentored through, like a coaching relationship. No one wants to talk about the rules because they don’t see the rules for what they are : a way of keeping others out. All this to say, this is what I deduce THE primary hidden rule of the British Royal Family to be: Don’t be not-white.
This! +1
I hear some Lisa Delpit in your post! Everything you’ve said is the truth.
@Wisca, the information about poverty is taken from Ruby Payne’s “A Framework for Understanding Poverty”, which is required reading in most of my courses (I am a professor of Teacher Education). Let me also recommend Pablo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and my new favorite, “White Fragility” by Robin DiAngelo.
OOOOOOh Noodle. This post should be required adult human reading. XO
@Pineapple, if only people would read. We would move so much farther in so much quicker a time if people actually read and reflected on ideas, rather than hearing them secondhand in church or through the mouths of fascists. Personally, I am so challenged by some of the things I read, but I learn and grow from it. I am working my way through “Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom” by Bell Hooks currently, and wow, I’m convicted. It’s uncomfortable, but so is growth. What are you reading right now??
wrong spot
Noodle, this comment is a day late but I am re-reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Colbert. It is a tough read but so, so important. Honestly, Elizabeth writes beautifully, it is just full of amazing facts and quotes by humans all across the globe.
I will look up some of the books you have mentioned. The lack of ethics today frightens and saddens me.
Why is she talking about Kitty Spencer?? What has she got to do with anything? She’s not a member of the royal family.
And again, not all HRHs work for the queen. I don’t know why that has become such an entrenched idea.
If they are going to talk about Kitty Spencer then it’s disingenuous to not include what Carole Middleton has done at party pieces.
Certainly. Carole has lots of power and influence in the firm. Kitty Spencer likely has none at all.
@mjm I think Carole’s influence isn’t in the firm ( the probably can’t stand her middle class ass), but in the press, especially the likes of Nicholl and Tominey. She basically runs Kate’s PR.
The profitable Duchies& all their commercial activities examples of Fergie writing books as a royal& using status subsequently or non working royals like Princess Michael have been discussed. But also pretty sure the head of the firm, the Queen makes money off her horses doesn’t she? I read her horses have won £7m in prize money over the last decade some of which I’m sure she pocketed as BP refuses to say otherwise. Princess Anne has a breeding farm& as she herself has said her horses are for sale. She was also paid to attend meetings during London 2012 planning.
It’s been said Prince Andrew profited in his role as a trade envoy and from his charity Pitch.
So yeah this whole fuss about royals (working or non-working) not profiting of status, not conducting commercial activities whilst being a royal is usual double standards.
Such good points.
In her private time with private cash, the Queen profits off her horse breeding, her dog breeding before she stopped, her race horses and prize money.
Anne’s private estate, purchased with private cash, was fixed up and secured with taxpayer money. She makes money off horse breeding and several equestrienne events on her estate each year. Last fall was her final Gatcombe Horse Trials, but Peter and her ex still run another event there for profit each year.
Sophie has race horses, purchased with private cash, off which she profits if they win.
The rules appear to be, ‘Profit however you want, as long as you aren’t named Harry and Meghan’.
Yes, “profit however you want,” as long as you don’t show the other Royals up. Meg was toooooo successful and charming. Shades of Diana. They had to get rid of her, jealousy and racism. That’s it. That’s all.
You know what would be glorious? If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex kept Sussex Royal and gave a finger up to the Queen. What will she do? Sue them?! Sue them over unwritten laws she creates when she feels like it?
Frankly, this is a brilliant idea.
But I do like the idea of “Sussex GLOBAL” which is far more reaching than anything the BRF has out there. Also, it kind of reminds The House of Petty just how popular H&M are. They can still use their monogram (w/out the crown on top).
Hell, it’s not like that family wants them back AS A FAMILY. And Harry won’t subject his wife and child to the wolf pack again, and he ain’t goin’ nowhere without them as a protected, package deal.
My cjoice has also been: Sussex H&M Global!
@ Jilly : That’s my question too. I was a lawyer for many years and I would agree there are laws in England that limit royals from using the term “royal” commercially. But Harry and Meghan aren’t based in England anymore and aren’t bound by those laws. I think their foundation/ website/ future business deals will all be based in Canada or the USA. And bound by the laws of Canada-USA. So why would they be affected by English laws?? Sussex Royal could avoid England entirely and still do just fine.
I think that is true. I don’t think there is anything that could stop them from using it abroad if they want to but I think it would very much be slamming the door on them ever coming back as working royals. If they dgaf about that then they could just do that.
Or they could use Harry’s last name The Harry and Megan Mountbatten-Windsor Trust, and be the more successful Windsors. I think they would be incandescent with rage, again.
Weirdly, I don’t think that’s Harry’s last name. I think, and someone correct please if I’m wrong, the deal was that untitled children in the family would use Philip’s last name (Mountbatten-Windsor), but the titled ones wouldn’t…
Is this right?
“The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.
It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen’s descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.”
@GuestWho – Princess Anne set a precedent when she signed her legal civil marriage papers Mountbatten-Windsor.
I don’t think this is actually Harry’s last name. Isn’t he just Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex? Previously he was Prince Harry/Henry of Wales and used Harry Wales in the Army so I don’t think his last name is Mountbatten-Windsor.
Plus? SCREW Mountbatten-Windsor. That’s Philip’s last name…screw him and his wife.
I hope they actually change Archie’s last name from this bull. No one in that family deserves the Sussexes to give them any more allegiance or respect. I hope Harry and Meghan make some sort of last name mash up from Ragland + Spencer and change all 3 of their last names. I know it would never happen, but I hope!!
I am so done with that stupid family – Liz, Philip, Charles, William, Kate, Andrew can all go straight to hell and sit next to the RRs and tabloid writers/owners.
The UK parliament (not the Queen) retains rights over any titles or designations to anyone in the royal family. They could decide to use Royal in their brand as there are plenty of brands around the world which have nothing to do with the British Royal family or even the UK. But ultimately the titles of Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not belong to them or even the Queen. My guess is that the titles will go next and they’ll end up naming their foundation something else entirely. I mean Invictus has nothing to do with anything royal and it’s a great success…I don’t see why it would be an issue.
I really believe it all comes down to the fact that the Firm hopes that Harry and Meghan aren’t successful. They had means to keep them in their “place” while they were in the U.K. Now, they are trying to exert control where possible.
As an aside, I don’t think Americans attribute much significance to the word royal.
There would be a public backlash in the UK if H&M were seen to be capitalising on their royal status. The Firm is acting to minimize that damage, that is all.
In the UK, the term holds considerable significance.
Protecting Andy from actual justice has diminished the monarchy forever. There are criticisms of the queen that would not have happened years ago. So merching is a minor concern at this point.
Is it a tacky use of a royal connection to have “happy first birthday Archie” on cake decorations? Asking for a friend in Berkshire.
They’ve profited off royal events since before the engagement. If the Middletons are attached, we can safely say it will be tacky.
😂🤣
Why have questions about Andrew’s shady business conduct NEVER been fully investigated by the relevant authorities or questioned in Parliament? If FFKween’s wiglets were up for debate, why not deals injurious to the UK’s reputation???
As I understand HRH comes at birth and can’t be lost. Others who marry in are awarded it, but if they then divorce they lose it. H&M haven’t actually lost theirs.
A letters patent could be issued to remove the HRH for those born with it. There was a retrenching of HRHs and Highness in 1917 when George V limited them to the grandchildren of the sovereign through the male line and only the eldest male heir of the the heir to the sovereign. This is when he changed the family name to Windsor because the german one was a little awkward during WWI.
Betty actually expanded it for William’s kids because of the new law making succession primogeniture instead of male primogeniture. She could have simply removed HRH from all great grandchildren of the sovereign.
So really anything could happen with the HRHs, but they would have to apply it to all the grandchildren across the board and not just Harry.
The HRH titles are given at the whim of the monarch. Elizabeth gave them to William’s kids a few years ago. And took them away from Edward’s kids when he married Sophie. She could absolute take it away from Andrew if she wanted to. Again, “IF” she wanted to.
She didn’t take them away from Edward’s kids. They are entitled to use HRH since they are the grandchildren of the monarch from the male line. However, E&S choose not to use it. Just like how H&M choose not to style Archie by one of Harry’s lesser title. If James and Louise decide to go by HRH, they can, legally.
When Edward and Sophie married, the Queen specifically said the kids would NOT be styled “HRH” and would instead be given the courtesy titles of the children of an earl. The “HRH” designation is up to the monarch. Unless the Queen changed her mind since then, Edward’s kids are not royalty.
The Queen only did that in reaction to laws that were being passed eliminating primogeniture in the royal succession. It was to prevent a female child of W&K from not being HRH when a son would be. She didn’t act, she reacted.
Mrs. Krabapple appears to be correct with respect to Edward and Sophie’s children, that they were not given HRH, with E&S approval.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/why-prince-edwards-children-are-not-titled-prince-and-princess-103666/
Diana gave up her HRH during the divorce, Fergie didn’t. The queen then issued a letter of patent stating that all divorcees would lose their HRH in a divorce. So did Queenie a letter of patent that said all her grandkids from her male line will be HRH except for Edward’s? Or did they just say that they wouldn’t be using HRH and instead be styled by that of a Earl’s kid. Cause if there’s no new letter of patent, then wouldn’t the one issued in 1917 that said all grandchildren of the monarch are HRH? If Charles become king tomorrow, Archie can use HRH according the letter of patent from 1917, but if M&H don’t want him to use it, it’s taken away from him.
Edward’s kids have the HRH by virtue of the 1917 letters patent. They simply choose not to use them. The Queen would have to have a specific letters patent to remove it from them and she did not. Instead she added Charlotte and Louis to the list, which is actually dumb when we look at the current situation.
Also, Lady Kitty Spencer isn’t a royal at all, non working or not. So not quite sure why she was name checked in this article.
I’ve been saying this for a while now, I thi k this random decision and daily fail exclusive is to cover up the fact that harry & Meghan dropped the royal part voluntarily.
Look at how DM is now publishing more fake stories about a “source” hearing her friends say she doesnt think they have to drop it!!! All the more proof that all this is another push to pressure Meghan to drop her lawsuit.
The idiots are so stupid and cant see how H&M dont care about titles. I said before that the report of janina following an account named Archie foundation could be clue that they made plans in the event of this petty toxic family doing this!
No one really knows what the guidelines are and just make it up as they go along depending on who does it. Everything the Sussexes do will end up being a conflict of interest because the Brits are feeling bitter and sour that they both left and are actually going to work and make money. What looks like a conflict from my POV is how these royals can accept expensive gifts like Sophie Wessex accenting jewelry sets from the Bahrain Royal family. Talk about greasing palms. A First Lady could never accept such a gift. This is the whole thing. From the beginning there was always this criticism that she breaking this or that protocol, or working too much, but that was all bs. Protocol specifically applies to diplomacy and state craft, not stockings and nail polish. Also, there is no job description of how to be a duchess for the 6th in line to the throne, so how she approached how she worked with her patronages weren’t wrong, just because no one else wanted to be hands on. From the get go, the Royal family has been playing catch up with the Sussexes. They panic, set the press dogs on them, do petty vicious things and it only succeeded in driving both of them out. And they’re still not satisfied because people are still interested in them. Except for a few statements and sightings here and there, the Sussexes are smart to keep their own counsel and not engage in these silly back and forths. It’s going to be insane when the return for a Commonwealth Day.
Wow, was Meghan criticized for being too “hands on” with her patronages? So what was the expectation, just show up once per year, take a tour and then leave? No wonder that patronage of Kate’s went out of business for lack of funds. And she is the ideal future-future kween consort? Hmmm, got it.
Word.
I also like Sussex Global — and if they can find a way not to use Sussex Royal (even thought I think they shouldn’t have to change it–they are still Royal), then that will be another way the press can’t vilify them.
Not to say they won’t keep trying though. I really wonder what the headlines will be like when they are back for their remaining events.
All anyone has ever said about the royal family is to stop sponging off the tax payers money and go out and get a real job. When they do it’s the worst thing ever. Royals who earn their own coin are now penalised but the Dolittles can spend millions of tax payers coin whilst sitting on their backsides and receive nothing but praise. I just can’t 😕
Harry and Meghan made their opinion on their ‘othering’ clear in their recent bulletpoint statement
‘While there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review period has been put in place. ‘
They’re putting it right out there. Other people are allowed to do this, but for us, nope, making it clear you all see how the BRF are treating us.
Daaaaaaaaamn, Nota! I wish I was on my phone so I could insert a million fire icons.
I’m off to read their statement.
ETA – ah okay, this was from their statement from the other day. I thought it was something new in response to the news about Elizabeth The Petty removing their use of ‘royal.’
the whole world is watching how Meghan and Harry are being treated by the royal family and the media in Britain. This taking away of the word royal from their future business endeavors makes my blood boil. This making the royal family look like demonic and evil for keep trying to hurt or punish this couple for leaving to make their own way in the world. Most people would be glad to not fund people who really are not working hard just doing royal things nobody really cares about or effects their everyday lives. This error on the part of the royal family as they say burns me up. Several senior and minor royals make money because of their connection to being royal Windsors. I respect them more for taking a stand to care about what is right for their family going forward. I hate say this but deep down the royal family only cares about who is next in line to sit on the throne. Everybody else is expendable. So Charles, William, and George got the highest preminium for future sitting on the throne. They do not care how the others are feeling good or bad-Problems of other members of the family might be having. If I was a billionaire, I would help this couple all I could to accomplish their dream goals and live a more normal but productive life. They have good hearts and hardworking skills I admire. God please bless the Sussexes as they go forward into a new way of actually living life as true human beings.
Seriously can’t see the issue with h&m cashing in, after all here in the UK Prince Charles has been flogging the Duchy Organics brand for years. And loads of products get royal.warrants – that’s a huge honeymooners and it slapped on all.sorts including the supermarket chain, Waitrose. That said I do know Waitrose deliver to the royal because I work on checkouts in a village in Surrey and servers customer who had staff discount card. I always ask staff i don’t recognise where they work and wish them well. He just said deliveries in London but his wife was very happy say ‘in London to kate and william, all the time’ wouldn’t reveal contents of deliveries. Data protection and all that. But i did ask!
@Ainsley wasn’t blaming Eugenie& Beatrice but commenting that they are being profiled/marketed as Princesses etc in the professional arena so their titles are coming up in the mix.
Also just saw on SM& went to look myself that the Royal Family’s website talks about Prince& Princess Michael representing the Queen on occasion in the past& then links to their own websites https://www.royal.uk/princeandprincessmichaelofkent where you can look at their charitable work but also eg in Princess Michael’s case learn about interior design business she works for or even buy her books http://princessmichael.org.uk/
Isn’t this the type of ‘endorsement’ they are said to be worried about with the Sussexes?
@GuestOne – Yes it is! Whomever is calling the shots against the Sussexes is talking out of both sides of their mouth.
I think this whole mess boils down to control. When Meghan & Harry leave no one in the BRF or no one working for the BRF will have any control over them.
Someone found that section about the word royal in the Uk trademark section and then it got turned into a talking point by the bots. Any actual lawyer knows there is way more nuance to this argument then that section. It is never “just the law”.
Because Andy should be questioned by the cops if things were “just the law”. He’s not.
This constant piling-on of Prince Harry and Meghan is such crap! As we all know, they’re being punished for daring to LEAVE- never mind that the reasons were press vilification and NO support from the “family.” The muddied waters between family and Family cause so much trouble for these people. They’re all so thin-skinned and petty.
I believe that many of you are right that ole Liz & co just want H&M back in for control and appearance’s sake. No one cares about the rest of them- I mean seriously, they were just last week floating Sophie and Edward as replacements? Lol! It must feel so shitty to be betrayed and hung out to dry by your own father and brother (PH has said so many times that he sees the Queen more as a boss than grandmother). I was looking forward to seeing H&M do amazing work and wear amazing clothes and tiaras for decades. They’ve lost my interest now, and I’ve been watching this crap for years.
All success to Sussex Global!