DM: Duchess Meghan told friends that they will still use ‘Sussex Royal’ (update: they won’t)

Britain's Meghan, Duchess of Sussex reacts as she arrives to visit Canada House, in London on January 7, 2020, in thanks for the warm Canadian hospitality and support they received during their recent stay in Canada.

Alright, I’m sure that people will have a lot of opinions about all of this, which is why I’m here. First of all, I don’t believe that “friends of Meghan Markle” are really running to the Daily Mail at this point. I do believe that freshly fired former employees of House Sussex might give some shady quotes to the DM though. And honestly, who knows. The Daily Mail claims that Meghan has been “telling friends” that the Queen can’t do anything about Meghan and Harry still using Sussex ROYAL.

Meghan Markle has told friends there is nothing ‘legally stopping’ her and Prince Harry from using their Sussex Royal name, despite the Queen banning them from using it, has learned. The 38-year-old complained to her inner circle that using the name ‘shouldn’t even be an issue in the first place and it’s not like they want to be in the business of selling T-shirts and pencils,’ the insider said.

They added: ‘Meghan said she’s done with the drama and has no room in her life for naysayers, and the same goes for Harry.’

On Tuesday, DailyMail revealed the Queen and senior officials agreed the two could no longer keep the word ‘royal’ in their ‘branding’, despite the likely thousands of dollars Meghan and Harry have already sunk into their website and trademark applications. The news did not sit well with Meghan, as her friend explained: ‘Meghan said the global projects they are working on speak for themselves and they chose that name to protect the royal name, not profit off of it.’ The friend continued: ‘Meghan said the name of their brand pales in comparison to the foundation they are building and the enormously positive impact it will have on people and the environment.’

But, the insider added: ‘Meghan has told her inner circle that their success is inevitable with or without their current brand name. She said regardless of the name, Harry and Archie have royal blood and no one can take that away. And that as a family, they will always be considered royalty. She said they know what their true intentions are and that’s all that matters. They are creating a better world for Archie. And it’s Archie who keeps them focused on the big picture.’

The insider also revealed that Archie ‘already has a big personality, like his daddy’, adding: ‘He’s curious about every little thing and has the absolute, most adorable giggle. He’s just pure love and joy.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Did Meghan say any or all of this or is this just some crap the Daily Mail has pushed to create another “let’s let commenters attack Meghan” article? One thing I know for sure is that these salty British tabloids are desperate for Sussex stories. As for the meat of this story… yeah, I’ve said before (today, even) that I actually think Meghan and Harry might be a bit peeved with the Queen “ordering” them to remove the “royal” branding. That being said, I think they’ll change their branding anyway.

Update: It’s just been confirmed, Harry and Meghan will end their “Sussex Royal” brand “this spring.” My guess is March/April.

Britain's Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex reacts as they leave after her visit to Canada House in thanks for the warm Canadian hospitality and support they received during their recent stay in Canada, in London on January 7, 2020

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

177 Responses to “DM: Duchess Meghan told friends that they will still use ‘Sussex Royal’ (update: they won’t)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mumbles says:

    There’s no way a friend of Meghan said this. Because there is no way they’re going to use Sussex Royal now. They get just as much cachet from a different term – Sussex Global or whatever they choose.

    • Brit says:

      Exactly. Hopefully takes this nonsense seriously but unfortunately it seems some will.

    • Agreed. And I also agree with Kaiser. This is hot, fetid, rising from the sewer of rabid press ‘Meghan’ slamming as always. I don’t doubt the Sussexes are peeved, but I also think they’ll leave the ‘royal’ behind them in the dust.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        The update info about all that they can/cannot do is on their instagram page:

      • BeanieBean says:

        Wow, TheOG, that’s cold. I think Harry & Meghan will be fine, but that’s still got to sting. It’s so downright punitive.

      • Babsorig says:

        Personally, I think better now than later. Also, whoever is doing this drip drip of what was agreed in January behind closed doors has a personal vindictive agenda, and I personally have a strong inclination as to who that person is but that’s for another thread. I have a strong gut feeling that the Sussexes will be alright. It will be a bump start, it already is, but in the end, there’ll be plenty of blessings go their way. They’re gonna make it.

    • Whatabout says:

      Sussex Global actually sounds better to me.

    • TeamMeg says:

      They could rebrand as “Suss Ex-Royal”


      • Spicecake38 says:

        Or NotRoyal…😉

      • Nana says:

        In Australia in the 80s, we used to have this classic non-alcoholic adult beverage called Claytons – no-one ever drank it but the marketing was ahead of its time – that advertising ditty stuck around for years… “Claytons: the drink you have, when you’re not having a drink.”

        So from a commonwealth perspective, I vote for Sussex Claytons-Royal: The royal you have, when you’re not having a royal :)

    • Boogiewoogie says:

      Sussex Global sounds like a telecommunications company. “We at Sussex Global work hard to keep you connected to business partners around the world, while also bringing you up-to-date news and information across all platforms. Sussex Global: Make the world a smaller place.”

    • Yvette says:

      I think they should go with ‘Sussex Duchy’ as the Duchy of Sussex is still theirs and they remain the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

    • JayDee says:

      I think the comments about the use of ‘Royal’ in the subsequent statement on their website bear out beyond doubt that the original story and quote from the friend were accurate. Ouch, what an own goal for the Sussexes.

      • Babsorig says:

        Naaah, you’all haters just choose to ignorantly and/or obtusely interpret and misrepresent what information they put on their website, but that’s not surprising.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @BYk, how can you be so certain that there was a actual “source” that talked to the DF? Maybe they lifted all they wrote from celebitchy or from Sussexroyal, or it could have been leaked by William and his minions; many people have been saying on here that the Sussexes can use “royal’ anywhere other than the UK, no? Their website specifically states that everyone of their team and the other team (TQ, Charles, William and all their minions) have known since January that they couldn’t use the word “royal” in their branding. They continue to state that “While there is not any jurisdiction by The Monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’ or any iteration of the word ‘Royal’ in any territory (either within the UK or otherwise) when the transition occurs Spring 2020″ all this is out in the open and makes it clear that the Fail didn’t need a source to tell them that, no?
        If all this has been out there since January how is it being attributed to some “source” that is Meghan’s friend?

  2. Brit says:

    This is all so triggering and dangerous but I think Harry and Meghan are very aware that no matter what they do, they’ll be demonized. This is the press trying to sell papers and get clicks. Actual sane people probably know this is a lie. Sometimes I feel the queen and co should say something to have this woman’s back but it seems like a waste of time in all honesty. After all the damage and harm tabloids have done to that society and people still follow and listen to them is mind blowing. All of this because they want to leave and be treated fairly by the press. I’m starting to think the press want to harm Meghan. This screams desperation and vengeance.

    • GuestWho says:

      Starting to think? They absolutely want harm to come to her. Think of the headlines! It’s brutal.

    • cluces says:

      The other day a Kevin Maguire stated on GMB that the Sussex were very upset with the monarchy. He said the RR aren’t the only reason they want out. They family did something that he can’t disclose. When this becomes public Mr. Maguire said public opinion will change for the Sussex!

  3. Lucylee says:

    Sounds like they will keep Royal but muckrakers need to backtrack and stir up more hate.

    • Becks1 says:

      Right, this makes it sound like they are going to keep no matter what the Queen says – so even if the queen privately says its okay, and they use it, it looks like they are going against “protocol” and such.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Exactly Becks. Imo, British Media made up a story saying Royal is banned to see if it would actually happen. I said as much on another post. It’s not happening so now Meg is defying the queen (because poor Harry has zero agency- eyeroll). This explains their made up story, and makes Meg look bad. And Queenie won’t correct it because she’s too worried about PedoAndy’s hurt feelings from his b-day party ghosttown.

    • Mac says:

      Well they do have the trademarks. They can do what they want.

      • s says:

        Correction – they applied for trademarks… they absolutely do not have them…

      • Mac says:

        For all intents and purposes they have the trademarks. No one can use the name while they are in process and there are no grounds to deny. Sussex is not part of the common vernacular.

      • Mara says:

        Mac – unless of course you actually live in Sussex, county residents probably say it all the time.

    • S808 says:

      Ohh wait yeah you may be right. They’re setting the narrative for them keeping Royal….

    • hunter says:

      Why would the queen “privately” say it’s okay when she is publicly saying it is not?

      No, they do not yet have the trademarks, the trademarks are still under consideration and have not yet been granted. There have been 14 challenges to the trademark that must be considered before it is granted.

  4. OH NO says:

    The Daily Mail can kick rocks…
    But this is one story I want to believe, because Meghan should be done with these people.

    They make the royals look good, not the other way around. Liz and Chuck should be begging them to keep the Sussex Royal branding because it makes their crusty asses look good my default

  5. pineapple says:

    The never ending stories are just getting so tiresome. Ethically this paper makes me cringe.

    • Brit says:

      The only people who most likely believe this spiel are the haters anyway. This screams sabotage and it’s not working at all.

    • Jellybean says:

      Yep! I don’t believe a word of it and I would be amazed if anyone working at DM does either.

  6. Rhos says:

    I kind of hope that she did say it. “Yeah, we will use it anyway, grandma, and what are you going to do? Sue your grandson?”

  7. S808 says:

    I’d love if they said fuck that old lady and everyone else in her lineage and use it anyway but Meghan and Harry are too nice for all that. They’ll change it and honestly it’s probably for the best. SussexGobal sounds better and all encompassing imo.

  8. Aa says:

    I can imagine Meghan is very tired of the stupidity and the complete lack of respect. Courtiers protecting the brand, while the Royal family itself actually does sell pencils and dishes.

    • Noodle says:

      *And dogs
      *And horses
      *And milk
      *And cars
      *And watches
      *And books
      *And products made on land owned by Royals

      But there will be NO financial gain for “Royals”, remember?

  9. Becks1 says:

    I know there have been various comments here and on twitter that H&M should just use it regardless and let the Queen (or the government?) sue them, but I really don’t think they will do that.

    However they may feel about it and however this actually has played out behind the scenes, if the Queen asks them not to use Sussex Royal, they wont use it.

    That said – why is the Mail acting like they were officially banned from using it when I thought the latest was that it was still being “discussed”? I know I know. Its because its the fail.

    • Jellybean says:

      The Queen doesn’t have to sue them she can just strip them of all their titles and disinherit Harry and then they can call themselves whatever they want, just like we all can. This is a stupid story designed to wind people up and is best ignored.

      • Becks1 says:

        She’s……not going to do any of that. You realize that, right? (and I’m pretty sure only Parliament can strip them of their titles, which they’re also not going to do.)

      • Jellybean says:

        Of course I know she will not disinherit Harry, just like I know that he will respect his grandmother’s wishes. Sorry, I shouldn’t have got snippy with you. It is such a stupid story and it is the people who are playing along with it, on both sides, that are irritating me, not you. I am not going to comment anymore.

      • hunter says:

        @Becks1 – only Parliament can strip them of the Duke & Duchess of Sussex title, the queen can strip them of the Royal title.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @Hunter, im not sure why you keep parroting these BS talking points. No the queen can NOT strip Harry and Archie of being royal, that’s just wishful thinking on yr part. And unless Meghan and Harry divorce, queenie can’t do so to Meghan either. Prince Henry Charles Albert David aka Prince Harry is the second son of the Prince of Wales. Harry and his son Archie Mountbatten Windsor will always be a royal till the day they die. He is and will always be Prince Harry and his wife will always be princess Henry and Archie will always be master Archie Mountbatten Windsor. Both Harry and Archie are 6th and 7th in line to the United Kingdom throne and the queen can do absolutely zilch to negate those facts and she can not strip either of them of royalty. The queen can NOT disown Harry, she is Harry’s grandparent, not his parent.

      • Nic919 says:

        Letters patent need to go out to remove HRH and a bill of attainder for the Sussex title. Neither are ever going to happen.

  10. lanne says:

    This is getting dangerous. This is now the tabloids trying to foment enough hate to get the Sussexes killed. For god’s sake, royal family, if you love your grandson at all, say something about this! I’m starting to think the media (all of it minus perhaps the guardian) won’t be happy until Harry’s walking behind another coffin. The Sussexes have to be wondering if it’s even safe for them to show up in the Uk at all.

    • Brit says:

      Yeah, it’s getting really hostile and dangerous. The RF really needs to stop the never complain explain nonsense. I’m really starting to think the press hate and are threatened so much by Meghan that they’re willing to harm her mentally and physically to get their way. I don’t know if it’s because of the lawsuits, which is getting closer by each day and they’re desperate for her to drop the case or angry because they’re money makers said deuces. What the hell is wrong with that family and press? What does the press have on them and why are the media allowed so much power? It’s ridiculous.

      • Mumbles says:

        Somebody is going to try to kill someone over a copyright issue?

        If that is true, it would be a good reason for Harry and Meghan to avoid coming back to the UK for those events.

      • Brit says:

        Mumbles, the implications behind the lawsuits if Meghan and Harry win is huge. That can have ramifications on all newspapers in Britain and Levenson Two can be brought back to the forefront. There are already phone hacking cases coming to the forefront from many in Britain. That’s also why Piers Morgan has been so vitriolic because Harry has joined a lawsuit were he’s implicated. Also, the British media is known worldwide as a racist, toxic abusive dump for years but Harry and Meghan haven’t been quite about that either. They’ve been trying to pressure Meghan to drop that case and nothing has worked. So, I truly believe they would try to harm her by whipping up enough hate to make her a target. Luckily, many more people have become aware of the media nonsense and with Caroline Flack and more people calling out the media, people aren’t believing the lies as much.

      • GuestOne says:

        @Brit The reason I’ve been sceptical of reporting about Meghan is they’ve lied about her from the start eg according to the legal filings making up a relative so they could claim she was from Compton& that porn story when she was just dating Harry.

        The Sussexes have won a number of IPSO complaints& obtained apologies even before the lawsuits so there has been lots of fake news around them.

        Editors were quoted in the Daily Beast threatening retribution against the Sussexes after there was no hospital photocall& then when it was announced they wouldn’t be working royals it was said that the gloves were off. Even before their Christmas break, a royal reporter said that editors didn’t like how they operated and that’s why they were being given a hard time in the press. Two royal historians and a psychologist even said on Twitter they had been approached to give negative feedback on Meghan on TV shows.

        So with this in mind, fact that Meghan is clickbait and coupled with the lawsuits- there is clearly an agenda& character assassination is part of it.

        The Guardian has an article about how the Sun had reported on Caroline’s troubles& possible suicide attempt a year ago so should have laid off her following her arrest knowing that history but didn’t. Sadly I do think these papers see denigrating especially women hoping for the worst is like sport for them. One daily mail journalist who was saying don’t blame the media, had earlier written gleefully about Caroline losing a job.

        Check out Brian Cathbert (a British journalism lecturer) on Twitter. He’s had some good insights on the bad reporting on the Sussexes including when Sussexit was announced and the motivations.

      • Abby says:

        @GuestOne I can’t find him on Twitter. Do you know his handle?

      • Babsorig says:

        @Guestone, @Abby, its Brian Cathcart, not Cathbert. Or google byline investigates

  11. kellebelle says:

    I call BS. Meghan wouldn’t say such things. And none of her friends would be saying things like that either.

  12. GuestOne says:

    This is some sad fan fiction& as some have said way for press to cover their bases like with Express story about her attending Beatrice’s wedding (she’s hogging attention if she attends, snubbing Beatrice if she doesn’t).

    If they don’t use it& it was all decided maturely- it’s because Queen banned them (plays to the gallery as the haters love language about Meghan especially being controlled/punished) and if they do (perhaps as not a big issue) then they are breaking protocol, disrespecting the Queen.

  13. RedRoyal says:

    The Daily Fail fabricated the story after listening to A talkRADIO host Mike Graham.

    • Brit says:

      Who is also disgusting. After Caroline Flack and Harry and Meghan saying they were struggling, the media are still targeting and bullying for profit. It’s just horrid.

  14. Ainsley7 says:

    Parliament is the problem not the Queen. The Queen has no power over their titles. She is only allowed to give them. Parliament takes them away. I doubt very much that Meghan said any of this. H&M have made it clear that they will uphold the values of the monarchy. One of those values is to not distract the government with minor issues like cashing in on titles. Edward and Sophie have already been through that particular issue and the Royals were given rules from parliament about what they can and cannot do. H&M aren’t being punished. The Queen and Charles are just trying to keep this from becoming a public scandal like Edward and Sophie. They want a clear distinction between them and the Sussexes so that parliament can’t complain.

  15. Nikomikaelx says:

    I was wondering that what could the Queen really do? Like is there really a law or whatever that would make them drop it? Couldn’t anybody start a business and use the title royal for it?

    • Jaded says:

      It would take an act of Parliament, not the Queen, to remove Harry’s Dukedom but it would have to be for a serious offense against Great Britain (i.e. treason). He is a son of a prince and grandson of the sovereign so his HRH title came at birth, and it can’t be taken away.

  16. Sofia says:

    None of Meghan’s friends are talking to the Fail

    And The Queen can’t strip them of their titles. An act of parliament has to occur.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      I wonder if Ninaki Priddy or bloody Samantha have been stirring the pot?

      • lanne says:

        if so we would know it. The other daughter screeches whenever she thinks we’ll listen. The friend betrayer has gone very quiet–she seems to be keeping a low profile after she sold Meghan out.

  17. Catherine says:

    One day we believe everything The Sun/the DM says. The next day we don’t 🤷🏽‍♀️🤷🏼‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      @Catherine Think it’s a better rule of thumb (if not a universal law) to believe that whatever the Sun/Wail has to say is a tissue of lies and discern the truth accordingly

    • ElizaRain says:

      Catherine, it’s a simple rule of thumb. When the DM/Sun/Telegraph etc makes any other royals, particularly Kate and William, look bad, they are to be believed. When they make M/H look bad, they are monsters.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Elizarain Is Tumblr missing you?

      • MsIam says:

        Actually, the Fail and others all say Kate and Will are the perfect couple and the future of the monarchy. I’m still waiting to see an article that says otherwise since William will claim his human rights are being violated and sue. So by your logic we shouldn’t believe that since it is only the bad things that are true? Got it.

    • Mumbles says:

      Same with Dan Wootton. He’s a liar except when he reports that the RF want Harry back, then it’s a credible story.

      Glad to see you’re on Tumblr, where I am supposedly as well! Lol.

    • Nic919 says:

      Who is saying they believed this story? Most said Meghan’s friends would never speak to the DM.
      And more lies would be when Becky English put out that story about Kate’s broken Britain days before Meghan’s successful Grenfell cookbook launch. Years later and Kate’s project remains incomplete and with a struggle survey. So yes the DM just lies.

  18. Nelly says:

    Yup her friends are work with a tab that she’s actively suing.

  19. Sarah says:

    I think this is nonsense. I also think 75% of all reporting about the royals is nonsense – it’s great click bait on both sides which is always worth bearing in mind to not take any of it as gospel. The RRs have to generate a certain amount of content and the papers know the interest is there for the stories so they feed the machine. Add in the differing political agendas of the different tabs and broadsheets and you get a perfect storm of nonsense.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Which is why I respect The Guardian as a great newspaper. The Guardian does very very little Royal reporting so when the print something about the BRF I believe it.

  20. Faye G says:

    Harry and Megan don’t need the Sussex royal branding, everyone in the whole world knows they are royal. It might inconvenience them but they will keep doing their thing with or without that particular name. The queen is so petty to insist on taking that away from them, not a good look for her legacy.

  21. Emmitt says:

    I don’t think the Sussexes are “peeved” about not using Sussex Royal anymore. Bummed out a little, but not crying in their sandwiches. We the public WANT them to be peeved but that doesn’t make it so.

    I think when they started talking about stepping down, they probably discussed amongst themselves the real possibility they wouldn’t be able to use “Royal”. If they knew there was a possibility they would be stripped of their titles (or still could be), don’t you think they would’ve also been coming up with new ideas for names? I think they are totally prepared for what may come and even if the Queen told them they couldn’t use Sussex Royal in the future, they still need to trademark those names anyway so someone else couldn’t sell Sussex Royal towels, toilet paper and pens.

    Friends of Meghan aren’t running to the Daily Wail to tell them a story. The fired staff knew or should have known when Harry & Meghan announced they were stepping down that their jobs were toast. This is nothing new and shocking to them and if it is, they are dumb just like the rest of the Palace.

    Daily Wail knows UK trademark laws aren’t enforceable in the US (or even the rest of the EU since Brexit), so the Sussexes very well could (but won’t) use “Sussex Royal” in the United States and there’s not much the Queen or anyone else in Britain could do about it.

    This is just a made up story for clicks and likes.

  22. Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

    They should be careful or they will lose the Sussex brand too.🤷‍♀️

    I have a hard time really getting too wrapped up and serious about this “royalty” conversation because it is a completely manmade institution that shouldn’t exist, We are all humans and none of us are better on the basis of whose vagina we emerged from……none of them came out with crowns on their heads. So I’m not one to stamp on the ground and insist anyone is royal or not royal….. but my aged cat of course. She really is a duchess.

    • Jaded says:

      It’s not easy to repeal a Dukedom. It would take an act of treason against the country or commonwealth to trigger something like that. Long story short it ain’t gonna happen.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You have a hard time getting wrapped up, but you’re all over these threads attacking Harry and Meghan and wishing for their divorce.

      Sure Jan.

    • Jaded says:

      “We are all humans and none of us are better on the basis of whose vagina we emerged from……none of them came out with crowns on their heads.”

      You’re missing the point that they come from royal lineage which means they have metaphorical crowns on their heads. I’m happy to share your disdain of “royalty” but you seem to be punching down on M & H, the state of their marriage, and how he’d go back into the royal fold if they divorced. Harry’s antipathy for his royal family goes deep, to a much earlier time when his mother died, so even in the remotest possibility M & H were to divorce, he’s already divorced himself from his toxic family. He would certainly carry on doing the work he and Meghan did together in her name.

    • Nic919 says:

      Parliament needs to issue a bill of attainder to remove the Sussex dukedom from Harry. These bills only happen when the person has committed treason. So Harry has the Sussex title for his entire life. I am going to say this every day until people stop saying this lie that Sussex can be removed by the Queen. It cannot.

  23. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    Riiiight. Sure she did…
    The level of sheer wicked hysteria being fomented is going to spill over at this rate, though, and it’s very worrying. It’s as if the Press are so desperate to punish Meghan for suing them that they care not at all that they’re enabling, if not weaponising, the screaming haters. THIS is one of if not THE reason why the Sussexes need security. Dear God – Princess Diana, Caroline Flack: how many more people need to suffer unnecessarily before the tabloids are reined in?

  24. Aa says:

    This also illustrates why Harry had to force the timing. They wanted to know their fate before launching the foundation. Can you imagine if they had tried to leave after lauching the Sussex Royal foundation? The palace would have tried claiming ownership and that Harry and Meghan couldn’t continue it because of the Royal name even though it would be an independent foundation.

  25. L4frimaire says:

    Yeah because nothing else is happening in national politics over there as important as what Harry and Meghan call their foundation. This is another distraction.

  26. AMM says:

    This sounds like DM knows they jumped the gun by announcing that the Queen BANNED the royal name, despite it not being an official announcement from the RF. Now if its decided that they can still use their name, the rabid DM commentators will believe that it’s because Meghans being disrespectful and going against the Queen. They are trying to cover their bases because they are reporting without facts. It’s been a few days since they printed the ban story, and everything’s still running under Sussex Royal. They wont admit they were potentially hasty in announcing the ban, they would rather make Meghan look like the villain. Business as usual for the DM.

  27. CatWomen says:

    I doubt this new ‘story’. The lawsuit M&H filed against the Mail shows the many lies they published about H&M, so I have no reason to believe this. Further , all their real statements and web site communication is the opposite, they support the Queen, and so on. Harry especially sees his battle is with the press, not his family. One aspect that is interesting and they focus on is that situation where the internet, press, gets so out of control, bullies, and ruins lives. This has so much value, they are really hero’s for breaking with his family , which Harry says was hard for him, to ultimately have a more peaceful live away from negative Forces (Robert Murdoch), but, these forces are still attacking . Then the same forces twist everything and make this about his family, and that not the real root cause for Harry. The media is. They are brave to stand up against them , people believe anything they read.

  28. Bella says:

    Funnily enough, I think Meghan could have said that/thinks that because basically it’s true! What is dishonest of the DM is to spin that as if H&M will use “royal” anyway – they won’t. I think a clean break and a different name is the best thing for them – their brand doesn’t need Sussex or Royal in the title. I’m sure she *is* irritated that these regulations are being invoked against them, who are being classy and have no intention of merchandising, and not against other RF members who are being tacky, not to mention the cost and hassle of trademarking. That expense was inevitable, however, because Sussex Royal was the name of their Instagram account and their website. But still, not being able to use the name Sussex Royal impacts their plans. It’s a blip, though, and will only make them more determined to make a big success of their foundation.

    So while the DM is a suspect source, I kind of hope that this story is a true reflection of M’s state of mind.

  29. Loretta says:

    I’m here for the news about Atchie. He seems a very sweet baby boy.

  30. Chickaletta says:

    Private Citizen Sussex.

    Trademark it, y’all

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I am really sick of comments from uninformed/unnamed snobs trying to disparage what some charities do, such as “selling T-shirts and pencils.” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is NOTHING WRONG with selling products to raise money for charity. Newman’s Own foundation donated over 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS to charity by selling salad dressing and popcorn. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not “tacky” to the people who benefited from these charities. Armchair snobs who are clutching their faux pearls should just sit down and shut up.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Those Hole in the Wall/Camps for Kids don’t fund themselves. Newman’s Own has done incredible work.

  32. Yami says:

    This story broke today because there is a whole American school bus with Prince Andrew’s picture on it urging him to call the FBI to testify driving up the royal mall in London.

    • Monette says:

      I came here to say exactly that. On the DM page this story about defiant Meghan has 8k in comments, guess how many does the one about the bus and Pedo Andy have?

      • grumpy says:

        Is there any evidence he is a paedo – a paedo is someone sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child. Every time people call him that it undermines the case against his actual behaviour which isn’t being a paedo.

      • carmen says:

        Grumpy – have you heard of Virginia Giuffre?

      • David says:

        Thank you for someone finally pointing this out. I agree and it’s a shame to victims of pedophiles, rapists, human trafficking, and more. They involve sex crimes but are still significant in their own right.

    • MsIam says:

      Agree. And the first story broke to cover up the new allegations of Pedo consorting with another sex offender. And the family won’t say anything about the H&M story because Pedo needs to be protected.

  33. Ohpioneer says:

    Daily Mail I see what you are doing here. This way if H&M continue using Sussex Royal and there is no “ban” on using the word Royal as they “believe “ they can spin the whole thing to Meghan “ defying “ Liz of House Petty ( Kaiser I love that title so very much) instead of them making ish up.

  34. Aang says:

    I’ve said before they should use whatever name they want to use. The queen doesn’t own the words royal or Sussex. This goes for all rich people everywhere: it’s great you want to help. Best way to help? Stop hoarding wealth and and then acting like saints when you share some with the peasants. Make sure everyone has a livable wage. A real livable wage, not $15 an hour. Rich people making a living by convincing richer people to give $$ to poor people is not an economic strategy that’s going to revolutionize anything.

  35. GuestOne says:

    So it’s confirmed. BP released statement that because of govt rules around use of ‘royal’, they won’t be using SussexRoyal for their foundation& won’t be used after spring by them anywhere so they are dismissing the protective trademark applications.

    • MsIam says:

      Well, I guess all those douches that tried to protest the trademark have egg on their faces if they were planning to cash in on the name.

    • Becks1 says:

      It sounds like the right move all around. Clean break, no one can accuse them of profiting off the word “royal,” everyone still knows he’s PRINCE Harry, etc.

      • notasugarhere says:

        But will this be used to force all other HRH working royals from making money using their titles? Of course not.

      • hunter says:

        @notasugarhere – key difference being “working royals” as you state yourself.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Queen isn’t stopping Anne, Sophie, and the Kents from profiting privately using their HRH titles. So it is okay to profit off the HRH if you are a working royal, but not profit if you aren’t one.

      • hunter says:

        “So it is okay to profit off the HRH if you are a working royal, but not profit if you aren’t one.”

        Yes. What part of that doesn’t make sense to you?

  36. Dali says:

    I don’t believe this, it’s another story to create clicks and outrage. It’s sad. The British tabloids are shameless. And they don’t need „royal“ in their brand. They are already very famous and Harry is a born doesn’t matter.

  37. MsIam says:

    Re the update: interesting. Well onward and upward. If they are going to stop using the Sussex Royal name this spring then I think that means they already have the new name picked out and ready to go. They are not asking for 6 months to come up with new branding. So we shall see what is next!

    • GuestOne says:

      Yes Msiam apparently they are still on course to launch their foundation in spring so guessing they have alternatives ready.

      • hunter says:

        According to their own website and UK law, it will not be a Foundation. Not anymore. They can’t.

      • Babsorig says:

        @Hunter, their website does NOT say they CAN’T launch a foundation; it says they WON’T, two very different and distinctive things. And I’m not sure why you salivating so at seeing the Sussexes fail but one thing is certain: when the Sussex NPO is launched in the spring, whether they call it a Foundation or a Not for Profit Organization, doesn’t matter, when they launch it, whatever they’ll call it, there’ll be tons of us there to support the Sussexes and cheer them on, the rest of y’all hateful people can eat your hearts out.

    • Becks1 says:

      My guess is it will just be the Sussex Foundation if that name isn’t taken. Simple, clean, still gets their name out there.

      ETA and like I just said on twitter – I bet in a year we’ll all be like, “what was the big deal over the term ‘royal’ anyway?” Their foundation is going to be successful any way so….

      • hunter says:

        They’ve said they will not launch a “Foundation” as the financial and legal requirements are too limiting.

      • Babsorig says:

        They’ll launch whatever it is and/or whatever they want to call it; Foundation, NPO, TheArchieOrg, whatever, they’re still set on launching it in the spring of 2020. Reading their website is very insightful actually, you can then separate the lies from the truth. All this that’s being dripped to the tabloids is NOT new, the Sussexes have known since January that they cant use Sussex Royal. Their staff was briefed in January that they were losing their jobs and whoever they take with them to their organization already knows they will have a job there. At this point, they’re communicating between their reps in London, that tells you the Sussexes are very well prepared for everything that has happened and are moving forward with their lives and plans. They will be just fine, just watch.

  38. Jay says:

    Guys, it sounds like the Daily Mail is reading our comments section! We mentioned all these good points yesterday, although in a less inflammatory way. Seriously, any close “friends” of Meghan and Harry would not be speaking to this source.

    My crackpot theory is that getting rid of “Royal” is something HM were perfectly willing to do anyway, but they want to use it as a bargaining chip. Like you (seemingly) give up something big in order to get the concessions you actually care about. There’s just no way planner Meg didn’t grab multiple domain names, just in case. Daily Mail, if you’re listening, feel free to quote me on that!

    • Olenna says:

      Agree; Meghan’s friends would not talk to the tabloids or trash news media (ITV, Sky, etc). Also, I have no doubt the Fail, the Dim, the Slow and any of the other news trash sites have RRs and minions camping out here, waiting for Kaiser and the Celebitches to cut loose on their azzes and break down and discredit the hateful dumbsh*t they report. The Comineys, Vines, Englishes, Nicholls, Palmers and Ships of the world know this is one site (maybe the only) where their f*ckery won’t pass the litmus test, where intelligent people converge and call their bigoted, racist reporting for what it is–vile garbage.

    • Cynthia says:

      yes, yes, yes! As soon as I saw that article, I knew the writer’s “sources” were actually comments on Celebitchy.

  39. Becks1 says:

    I do want to point out that in their announcement they took a dig at the Cambridge stans, lol – the line about “acting on advice and following the same method as the Royal Foundation” – I don’t think that was aimed at KP, but rather, aimed at the people who insist that royals NEVER EVER EVER trademark ANYTHING and HARRY AND MEGHAN ARE GRIFTERS WHO WANT TO MAKE MONEY ON THEIR ROYAL STATUS. No, they were following the same method as other royal foundations.

    • notasugarhere says:

      In the bullet points they released, they took plenty of digs at the royal family and at the RRs. Becky E is already on twitter about how she’s going to keep following (and abusing) them because they’re still members of HM’s private royal family.

      • GuestOne says:

        Yes they made quite clear they’ve been treated differently as has been pointed out on this site. And that they’ve been restrained from addressing reports eg about the staff redundancies.

        Oh well on to the next outrage.

    • S808 says:

      They took some digs and it was much appreciated and overdue imo.

  40. Angie says:

    This upsets me. I don’t want to read about them anymore. Evil is winning.

  41. Silas says:

    This is sad. The whole thing was outrage that a biracial women dared to be a British royal. And now she is not a British royal. This is all on the wrong side of history. (The Queen is the head of state. This matters that the head of state is enabling racism) It’s just sad.

    And it is not a coincidence at all that this was released now. It’s meant to drown out Andrew’s humiliating pathetic birthday. And Charles is fine with it.

    Andrew, Fergie and Beatrice are given a letter from the Queen and feted by the Chinese Ambassador. HRH Princess Beatrice used her royal connections to arrange a heli-skiing trip to Pakistan (how environmentally friendly) and a reception with officials there.

    HRH Princess Michael and her blackamoor brooch will continue to publish books marketing herself as a royal. And of course the Queen and Anne have their horse related businesses.

    But the biracial women is not royal. Let’s make that very clear.

    I think Harry and Meghan will be fine but I’m still going to let myself be sad that this happened. White mediocrity is praised and protected and centered and excellence when it comes from a black woman and a WoC is treated with anger and contempt.

    • notasugarhere says:

      She continues to be a British royal. She and Harry retain their HRH and all of their titles.

    • Olenna says:

      @Silas, please go to their website and get straight on the facts. I know this use of “royal” is discouraging to people who like and respect the Sussexes, but there is enough bad info being manufactured by RRs and Meghan-haters that it’s discouraging to me (and maybe others) when Sussex supporters fail to go to the source for facts and end up contributing to the negative gossip as much as the haters do.

      • hunter says:

        Her updated comments on that site are embarrassing. She sounds quite bitter.

      • Guest2.0 says:

        @hunter. Why do you assign the comments on the site solely to Meghan? How do you know it wasn’t Harry who drafted the site contents. You’re a Meghan hating troll so go infect another site with your toxicity.

      • Olenna says:

        @hunter, who is “her”? Now, if you’re speaking of the Duchess of Sussex, you’re starting to sound bitter since you fail to acknowledge that the Duke of Sussex has agency over his own life. That people continue to blame the Duchess for everything Harry does or doesn’t do only reinforces the fact that the irrational criticism and hate directed at this couple is really only about the Duchess. He said for several years past that, if he could choose, he would not be a working royal. Yet, along with the goal posts of what’s royal and what’s not that the haters and tabloids have claimed the Duchess has failed to meet, so has her supposed power over Harry continued to change with every step they take. Now, you want to claim she, and only she, is responsible for what’s published on their website? What you should do is stop underestimating people here and take your trolling elsewhere.

      • Jules says:

        @ hunter, I agree. Making a public snarky statement like this will not get them any sympathy. What’s the end game here?

      • Olenna says:

        @Jules, the Sussexes do not need sympathy. People who like and/or respect them already know what’s going on with the media hate. People who don’t like them or who hate them should stop stalking their every move and go on about their own business, or just follow their favorite working royals because in a few weeks, the Sussexes will officially be non-working royals. If people choose to continue to hate-stalk the Sussexes for personal reasons, there is nothing the Sussexes can do about that. Hate-stalking by the tabloids is another story. If legal action or release of public statements is necessary to address the lies and libelist reporting, then there is no excuse for people whose lives aren’t even impacted by the Sussexes to be criticizing them or questioning whether they deserve sympathy.

      • Rhos says:

        @Olenna, it’s “she sounds quite bitter” because she absolutely would have to approve the update, whether she wrote it herself or not. And knowing how hands-on Meghan has always been with social media, she probably did write it too.

        @hunter, I have to agree with you. The jibe at the Queen not owning the word “royal” and other family members who profit, sounds unprofessional and bitter. No need to explain themselves and their actions, really. Just move on, you don’t need the word royal and all that other crap.

      • GuestWho says:

        @Rhos – again, why do you take away Harry’s agency. If any one should be bitter, it is him not her. It’s his family jerking him around. Leaving is his decision. Why put it on her – except to troll the comments?

  42. JRenee says:

    Is it the word royal or the wording, Sussex Royal?
    He’s legally Mountbatten-Windor, correct or no?

  43. yinyang says:

    I don’t think they care to use it. The only people that care about this is the royal themselves only.

  44. cherriepie84 says:

    Daily Fail must be glad for Celebitchy! They are referenced on this website almost every day and so we become a part of the media frenzy around this poor woman.

  45. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I doubt H&M care that much about using “royal” in their foundation name. They’ll be successful with or without it.

  46. S808 says:

    They mentioned they’d hoped to announce updates earlier….so I’m guessing the BRF stalled H&M’s announcement to brief the press against them. And commenters that said this brand name fiasco was to get ahead of the fact that they had already planned to ditch Sussex Royal anyway and spin it into them being “banned” were correct.

    • yinyang says:

      You’re right, the brf release everything in bits to guage public opinion, this is a part of their pr strategy.

  47. Bellah says:

    I just read their update and love that they call out the double-standard they’re being held to.

    “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.”

    “For the above reason, the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed. “

    • Olenna says:

      Yes, it was extra gratifying to me to see the Cambridges put forth as examples for “royal” trademarking. Woke Willie must be seething over this, LOL!

  48. Coffee says:

    this is so ridiculous.

    Why dont harry and meghan just use their personal funds and give everyone else the middle finger? Theyre having to listen and be under 12 month review periods because the BRF is still funding them.
    Kinda sucks.

    • Guest2.0 says:

      I don’t think it has to do with receiving funding from Charles. I think if they could H& M would do a clean break. I think it’s the RF wanting to maintain control over them and not really wanting to let them walk away free. It’s almost like the RF feels ownership of H&M and want things done their way.

      • Coffee says:

        Yes but what can the BRF possibly have over H&M that they would stick around and follow their directives even though they’re no longer working royals?

      • Guest2.0 says:

        I don’t necessarily think the BRF has “anything over” H&M. My view is that since Harry is a senior working royal, grandson of the Monarch, son of the heir, the BFR/courtiers have to somehow “save face” in agreeing to let H&M step down and seek their independence. Aside from Edward VIII abdication, no senior member of the BRF has ever voluntarily left. Now, here’s Harry saying, I’m out y’all..see you later. It’s been stated many times that Harry has wanted to leave for at least a decade and was always persuaded to stay. Now, he’s thrown down the gauntlet and said enough is enough. I think the BRF are still in disbelief/shock that Harry has decided to leave and have placed this 12 month review as a condition to agreeing to let him leave. Okay, you can go and do a trial for 12 months, after which we’ll review the situation. It’s like starting a new job and being on one year’s probationary status to see if things will work out. If after the one year, you do well, then you achieve permanent status with your employer. The Firm is Harry’s employer and they’re letting him go only on a probationary status. I guess the Firm’s view is that you’re basically an employee for life unless we say otherwise.

      • YaGotMe says:

        @ Coffee – that is the elephant in the room. The only reason the BRF hasn’t gotten the big middle finger (deservedly) is the cash.

      • Tina says:

        Probably has something to do with top security cost! That’s the only thing they holding against H and M. We all know they getting severe threats, more than Pres. Obama ever have I bet!!!

      • David says:

        I think security is the biggest issue.

      • Babsorig says:

        Its all about security @Coffee. Please go to their website and get all the facts.

  49. aquarius64 says:

    The Instagram post is interesting. Shade thrown at the monetizing HRH’s . Upthread someone said the Sussexes are mad at the BRF for something they did. If the Times story from last spring is true-that William ordered the press to weaponize Bad Dad-that would be huge.

    Karma is coming for the BRF.

  50. Vicsy says:

    Celebitchy plz analyze the statement on the sussex royal website!!!

  51. blunt talker says:

    The Daily Mail is trying to stir the pot before they arrive back in England. It has been already on many news outlets that they will not be using the word royal in their instagrams or anything else. I think the Sussexes saw the Daily Mail’s headline and responded through their spokesperson late this afternoon. I watch enough tv news and I saw what the spokesperson stated. The Daily Mail jumped the shark so to speak. I truly believe something awful happened with the royal family that has caused this split with the family. I truly pray and hope for their success and safety going forward.

  52. JennEricaMS says:

    From their website, “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.”

    Such masterful shade very deservingly thrown at the RF. I wish them all the hope and happiness that this parting will bring them!

    • Islandgirl says:

      I personally believe that Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan had hoped to use the original name of their foundation….too much work went into their preparation. But, I know that this is for the best. They will be successful and would have cut all ties to the BRF in terms of their work life. No more control or oversight of any sort of what they do. Best of luck to them.
      I am not sure what the thinking of the BRF is but it appears to be very narrow in terms of who is paying attention to this (only the UK) and very shortsighted…immediately punish them and make it as difficult for them to get their new start, as possible
      I am a citizen of one of the British commonwealth countries and I know that people are quietly watching and are quietly disgusted and when the time is right we will show exactly how we feel about the BRF’s treatment of a biracial woman.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      It comes down to the type of employment they are seeking though. There is no precedent for a former working Royal to leave and continue to be a public figure outside the family. If Harry were rejoining the army or taking up an air ambulance job like William (except hopefully he would actually show up) then it would be different. It’s that they basically want to continue doing what they were doing without any of the restrictions that is causing the problem. Not all the restrictions on the Royals are from the Queen. Parliament has created a lot of the rules around what they can and can’t do as government representatives. Harry will always be seen as a member of the BRF. In some ways, he will always represent the monarchy no matter what he does. So, trying to continue to be a public figure outside the rules is different than seeking a private job with some charity work on the side like Beatrice and Eugenie.

    • Scorpio ♏️ Rants says:

      Haha but seriously that wasn’t masterful shade…….no subtlety detected🤷‍♀️. That’s straight up trolling🤪

  53. KellyRyan says:

    H&M deserve all the security which can be provided. Imagine the verified threats, and still no defense from the BRF.

    SussexRoyal, “We hope you will use this site for factual information.”

  54. June says:

    I was noticing on a map that their house in BC is very close to the International Airport. I live close to a small rural farm airport. I enjoy that, watching the wee planes. I would not want to be living in the flight path of Jumbo jets though.

  55. Tpoe says:

    This whole saga is ridiculous. We’re talking about a powerless, decrepit, archaic excuse for a monarchy still clinging to delusions of grandeur and two people who rightly walked away from it but still want to cash in on the word “royal”.

    That is all the British monarchy amounts to now, a way to separate gullible tourists from their cash. Meghan and Harry should be all the way out in my opinion and that includes trying to cash in on it. They have the means to make plenty of money on their own without using the “royal” crutch (unlike everyone else in that family) that no one in that family from the Queen on down ought to be using at this point. They haven’t been “royals” in anything but name and theatrics for decades.

  56. HoyaLawya says:

    QEII could certainly do all that but it would make her look horrible.

  57. Andrew’s Nemesis says:

    @Holalawya Given old Brenda’s (a UK nickname for the monstrous old bag, if you’re not British) behaviour regarding her paedorapey favourite son, very little can make her look good… The thing is, she simply doesn’t care. She’s the monarch, we’re ‘subjects’ (because we didn’t emerge from a gilded birth canal and have a crown handed to us): the monarchy is all that matters. And, given that a monarch hasn’t been executed since the mid-17th century and 70% of my fellow Brits are forelock-tugging sycophants, her position is unassailable