The Mail is mad that the Sussexes haven’t updated their Sussex Royal website…?

When Prince Harry got rooked at the Sandringham Summit and was forced to take a “hard exit,” part of that dumb deal was that the Sussexes could no longer use or brand themselves with any variation of “Sussex Royal.” That was their Instagram handle and they had named their website Sussex Royal, the website in which they laid out their plans for exit and their hope for some kind of half-in situation. Once the hard-exit was complete, they made a final post on their Sussex Royal Instagram and left it active (although they have not updated it since 2020). Same with their website – no updates since 2020, but the website is still up and around. This is the Daily Mail’s big exclusive: that the internet is forever, and that the Sussexes’ old website – which they were forced to abandon per the terms of the Sandringham Summit – has not been updated.

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s ‘Sussex Royal’ website has still not been deleted despite a promise not to use the self-anointed label in 2020 – and it has not been updated to mark the Queen’s death, MailOnline can reveal today.

The Sussexes agreed not to use the ‘Sussex Royal’ title ‘in any territory’ post Spring 2020 after they stepped down as senior royals. But despite this pledge to re-brand, sussexroyal.com remains live almost three years after Megxit, as does their Sussex Royal Instagram account with 9 million followers.

The couple spent tens of thousands of pounds on the website’s design and a section pledging to ‘serve the monarchy’ when ‘called upon’ has not been updated to reflect the death of Queen Elizabeth II – or Harry’s father becoming King Charles III.

One royal watcher who spotted the error told MailOnline today: ‘I am amazed that their Sussex Royal website is still in the public domain. The Queen is deceased and the Sussexes agreed not to use Sussex Royal moving forwards’.

Another said: ‘At the very least it should reflect the Queen’s death and be updated with King Charles III’. A third tweeted sarcastically: ‘According to Sussex Royal website, our late Queen is still very much alive’.

It is not clear who operates or owns the Sussex Royal website because it has been kept anonymous by GoDaddy in the US. A spokesman for the Sussexes did not respond to MailOnline’s requests for comment.

The Sussexes’ Instagram page, @sussexroyal, amassed 11.2million followers. Three years on it is also still online but has lost 2million followers.

The Sussex Royal website’s launch was said to have ‘hurt’ the Queen and dismayed Palace officials when it appeared in 2020.

[From The Daily Mail]

What “hurt” the Windsors is the fact that the Sussexes used the Sussex Royal site to spell out their ideas for being half-out of the institution and their perfectly reasonable plans to negotiate what they wanted. It meant that Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace couldn’t run the table and lie about who said what and what the Sussexes were asking for. I suspect that’s why the site is still up too – as a reminder that this situation was utterly unnecessary and that the Sussexes were treated with cruelty. Either that or the Sussexes just forgot about it and they’ve moved on since 2020. Certainly the bigger question is: why is the Mail getting quotes from royal sources about a defunct site which has been untouched since 2020? I also believe that William and Kate are still butthurt about the Sussex Royal Instagram and how popular it was.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

33 Responses to “The Mail is mad that the Sussexes haven’t updated their Sussex Royal website…?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Izzy says:

    And if they delete it, it will be “a slap in the face” to the monarchy. There’s no way to win a PR war when one side is that stupid.

    • Slush says:

      Absolutely this. Or if they edit it “ How dare they edit this and still call themselves Royal they’re not working royals anymore!!! This is an atrocity!!!”

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        This is why the best course of action is the one they took: leave it up, don’t update it, go grey rock on the haters and move on.

        The Fail is looking to goad them into taking actions so that they can report and complain about them and write stories about it. Team Sussex will not give them the satisfaction, and it absolutely galls the tabloid skunks.

        This is, btw, a classic abuse tactic that the tabloids are pulling. They really act like they think they’re part of the Greater abusive BRF. They’re not. They’re commoners who “do not know their place”. The pretzel logic that enables them to think they own the royals or that royals owe them anything whatsoever is something that psychiatrists should really do a study on.

  2. equality says:

    The RF website took its own sweet time updating Archie and Lili’s titles and putting them in the line of succession. H&M can take however much time they want updating anything.

    • Amy Bee says:

      It’s interesting that the British press never wrote the story about Harry and Meghan’s pages on the royal family’s website still staying that Frogmore Cottage is their UK base and that they will continue to serve the Queen on a part-time basis. The Royal Family website just copied and pasted from Sussex Royal. That’s the bigger story.

    • Robert says:

      I think the point is, They agreed not to use the site as of a certain date. They haven’t. That means they don’t update it, they leave it exactly as it was when they said you wouldn’t use it anymore. An update would violate their agreement. And they did only agree to not use it, so they have no obligation to take it down.

      • Christine says:

        I seriously think whoever wrote this at the Fail had too much to drink and got weepy about how the media and that family had managed to chase the Sussexes off of social media. Imagine the breathless reporting if Meghan was dropping content regularly.

        Someone is in their feels. Cry.Harder.

  3. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    I’m confused, the Sussex’s agreed not to use Sussex Royal and they haven’t since they stepped back, so how/why exactly were they supposed to “update” it with the news of the queens passing etc? Talk about screeching into the wind, the British press really is filled with idiots.

  4. Amy Bee says:

    Harry and Meghan lost control of the Instagram account and the press knows that. If they want it deleted they need to ask BP about it. Furthermore, I’m with Kaiser, I think the website was left up so that their side of the story remains in the public domain. The last time I checked out the website there was a link to Archewell on the front page. The press are hungry for stories about Harry and Meghan and have resorted to getting “news” from derangers.

    • Kingston says:

      H&M spent their own money developing the sussexroyal website & IG. It doesn’t belong to BP. That’s why it has remained undisturbed.

      As someone upthread pointed out: they agreed not to use that name anymore in any jurisdiction. And if u recall, back in 2020 H&M said they only agreed not to use “royal” as a courtesy, because the BRF doesn’t hv a monopoly on the word ‘royal.’

  5. s808 says:

    the Sussex Royal instagram was fantastic and none of them have been able to replicate its success. I want Archwell to get on Instagram so bad. It’d be a great way to showcase the work they’re doing and way to communicate more directly with supporters. There’s a reason the Sussex Royal instagram specifically had to go and W&K snatched up the social media manager immediately (though he ended up leaving too, like they all do)

  6. JaneS says:

    Every. day. someone is dumping on H&M. Every single day.
    Let them live, they are doing fine.
    The DM is a garbage site. Stay away and do anything else with your time.

  7. Miranda says:

    “…and it has not been updated to mark the Queen’s death, MailOnline can reveal today.”

    That “can reveal today” bit is great, because it really says it all about the BM’s coverage of Harry and Meghan. It’s always ancient news (and working with a very loose definition of the word “news”) reported as if it were the latest exclusive. Also, I enjoy the mental image of some low-level intern whose job it is to sit in their cubicle, day in and day out, just refreshing the Sussex Royal page to see if it’s still there.

  8. Wow any little thing they will throw negativity at. They were not allowed to use it and they haven’t. There is no need to update it with anything because they are no longer part of the royal cult they are private citizens. Next.

  9. Surly Gale says:

    I just went back and looked and for whatever reason, I note that I was no longer following @SussexRoyal, so I just re-followed.
    WE need to all go back and check if our follows have been removed by nefarious ways and means. I KNOW I did not remove my follow myself.
    So in a backwards, this is not what they meant or really wanted, they have given me an opportunity to recommit my allegiance to H&M. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

    • Christine says:

      Same, and I re-followed. It would be hilarious if there is an article later this week that SussexRoyal gained 2 million followers, even though it’s a defunct account, but of course no one on Salty Isle would write that story.

  10. L4Frimaire says:

    I hope a ton if people check out the Sussex royal page now and see everything the Sussexes dis while working royals. The UK is stuck in 2018-2020. They’ll go over this old stuff but afraid to report that Harry just won his lawsuit against the Mirror Group. I really can’t figure out the point of this article.

  11. teehee says:

    You’re not supposed to use this website!
    Why didn’t you use it !?!?!?

  12. Dee(2) says:

    So another commenter pointed out on the Deadline article that these new articles are trying to goad the Sussexes into releasing statements and it’s making a lot of sense. After the whole Royal racist debacle, where they didn’t make a statement, and the “losers” article where they also didn’t say anything, the only time they have commented recently is in reference to winning against the Mirror group which the BM obviously don’t want to highlight. The only thing the BRF has staying power for as far as articles anymore if for negativity. Didn’t Kate just do something for her Early Years and William about homelessness or poverty? I can’t even remember that’s how low impact it was. So they really need the Sussexes to be out there doing or saying something for their bottom line. I hope they continue to pay them dust.

  13. Dekkah says:

    It is not an update they want re the website and Instagram Sussex Royal they are after is the deletion of it all.

  14. Concern Fae says:

    My question is why the hell is Sussex Royal being hosted by GoDaddy.com? Would social media professionals use their services? I always thought of them as somewhat sketchy, but perhaps that’s changed.

    • Surly Gale says:

      Oh Lord, I hope not, that’s where my website is hosted. I know nothing (had a young person who seemed to know what they were doing set up my website). It would be awful to learn they are a no-go, cause that person is moved on and I’d have no idea how to move it!!
      My question is, who is paying the Go Daddy bill?

      • LizzieB says:

        H&M are paying the GoDaddy bill I think – the reason why they haven’t deleted either the site or the Insta is so that no one else can get hold of the name and then use it as a hate/parody site. So it’s frozen in time to preserve it.

  15. Hannah says:

    If they give up the domain name, there would be nothing stopping someone from registering domain name.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I’m not certain, but I think you can register a domain name without using; so they could deactivate their website but keep the name. I think they are likely doing exactly what their lawyers have advised them, though, so I think they’re OK.

  16. Mary Pester says:

    Um, why is this rag even look lookinh at the site? Were they hopeing above hope that they had updated it so they could scream, stamp feet and clutch pearls? Tough. It’s Harry and Megan’s touchstone and truth, because no matter how the Palace spins things, and no matter the pathetic diatribes written in the rags, THAT TRUTH is laid out for everyone to see.

    • Christine says:

      I seriously think it’s that simple. Someone at the Fail got the sadz that Harry and Meghan aren’t on social media, and they don’t have continuous access to what they are feeling on any given day.

      I’m glad it’s still there, to tell the story of that horrible time for the Sussexes.

      • BeanieBean says:

        It is historical fact now, which ticks off the rats because they want to continue their vile fictional accounts purporting to be ‘truth’.

  17. AC says:

    DM just wasted space on this article. Is there anything else exciting going on over there , I mean anything😄

    • Surly Gale says:

      Okay, so my question re who was paying is sort of answered. What your comment, Christine, did is make me LOL because of their article, I went to the website. Lucky I did cause my follow had disappeared. Oh, I do so hope their stupid article means all kinds of people go to SussexRoyal and follow and suddenly there’s a whole slew of folks learning about their difficult time and hear in their own words (Harry’s) how often, how much he tried to resolve the whole stupid situation BEFORE they left.

  18. Beverley says:

    Well, no matter what Harry and Meghan do (or don’t do), they will always do wrong in certain people’s minds. These people will never praise or acknowledge anything good on the Sussexes’ part. Ever.

    So the haters can just STAY MAD.

  19. Lucky you says:

    Slow news day at the Fail today it seems if they are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

    As someone posted above, if they close the web and the IG account then anyone could buy the domain. They just keep it to avoid other people doing business with their name.