Queen BANS Prince Harry & Meghan Markle from using 'Sussex Royal' brand

Sussex U Bus works for the Golliwog.

Have to think a minute for the Ginger.

This is so incredibly unfair!

I don't want any of the duties or responsibilities of being royal, but I want all of the perks and the continued use of the brand name! What could be more fair than that?

Sussex Success. Suck Sex Sussex. Sussex Excess. I see no problem in shifting their Brand to any of these options!

This is big news and should have been the case much earlier in the day.

It's Meghan's and Harry's just reward for counting their chickens before they hatched (something I have mentioned before that Meghan, particularly, is prone to) and using strong-arm "fait accompli" tactics to bully the Queen and the BRF.

The Sussexes started their "branding" exercise long before they held any conversations with the BRF. Meghan was doing this once past her twelve-week scan, sure of her little insurance policy as a further lever to get what she wants.

This move makes me wonder if, indeed, a furious Harry will also ditch his title - if SussexRoyal is gone, what is the point of holding on to Duke and Duchess of Sussex?

That would leave him with the HRH he was born with, Prince Henry of Wales (until William is Prince of Wales).

The fraus on Celebitchy will be losing their minds over this. They won't remotely call out Meghan for figuring she could stick two fingers up to the BRF within six months of the wedding, and starting the branding process without so much as a word to the Queen or Charles, but they'll all call out the BRF for being a bunch of racists punishing the Sussxes for leaving in the first place.

Calloo Callay Oh Frabjous Day!

[quote]Next on the shooting gallery: Harry's place in the line of succession.

Fascinating. Hadn't even thought of that. Could he be removed from line of succession? I believe he should be, but I suppose the palace has to keep in mind the imminent eventual divorce and Harry's return to the fold.

[quote] That would leave him with the HRH he was born with, Prince Henry of Wales (until William is Prince of Wales).

He doesn't get to use HRH as long as he walks away from his royal duties. If he gives up being "Duke of Sussex," he would have to become "Harry Mountbatten-Windsor." He cannot use "HRH" unless he comes back into the fold again--the Queen has been quite clear about that, and all royal titles come from the living sovereign.

[quote] Next on the shooting gallery: Harry's place in the line of succession.

No, that's not something the Queen, Charles, or William can change... at least by themselves. Titles all come ultimately from the sovereign, but the sovereign cannot make any declaration affecting the line of succession--that is beyond her (or his) power. It would take a full Act of Parliament to remove Harry from the line of succession. Harry would have to something really evil for that to happen--the last time it happened was in 1917, and it was because some male royals in the line of succession supported Germany rather than the UK in WWI.

There is almost zero possibility that Harry will ever succeed to the throne, and the Queen and Charles (and Harry) all know that. It would take an unprecedented disaster, like a bomb, for William and all three of his children (who are all each in line to the throne after William but before Harry) to be wiped out so that Harry could become king after Charles.

R6 - No, if the Queen takes away his royal ducal title, Harry is still Prince Henry of Wales, not Mr Harry Windsor. He was Prince Henry before he was Duke of Sussex, and if he stops using Duke of Sussex. he is still HRH Prince Henry.

Changing the line of succession requires the consent of Parliament. It would only be on the table as a bargaining chip for any more favours from the BRF in return for Harry "voluntarily" relinquishing it. He would have to be found molesting children on video to be stripped of it any other way.

And, he doesn't have to relinquish the title he was born with in order to remove himself from the line of succession.

The problem re the HRHs is Meghan. She was Meghan Markle before HRH Duchess of Sussex. No one in the BRF really wants Harry stripped of his royal birthright - but they don't want her to have it because they feel, I think rightly, that she cheapened what it stood for.

Princess Henry means nothing to her, and won't mean anything to the brand.

They are sticking it to Meghan for all her smaller and larger betrayals; Harry is just caught in the blowback. My guess is that they'll stop at this, leave them their meaningless unnused HRHs in the background, and then one day hope to welcome HRH Prince Henry Charles Albert David back into the royal fold once he's pried away from the toxic wife.

I wonder if this will impact their appearance at the upcoming Commonwealth service on 9 March?

Meghan, you foolish foolish woman. You should have played nice, picked a British designer for your wedding dress, worn a simple suit for the formal engagement portraits, went up to Balmoral that first summer, not played the Mean Girl stunt at Eugenie's wedding, not argued about the tiara, not abused staff, not stepped on other royals' news cycles . . .

hahahahahaha

what a stupid negress!

How about ‘The Duke and Duchess of Oxnard’?

They should rebrand themselves as the Sussex Shitkickers. Let the royal family suck on that.

So, we should try to anticipate what brand names they'll select as alternatives...and then we should register the web domains and trademarks. Sussex Global? Sussex Foundation? Sussex Dukedom Foundation? Duke and Duchess of Sussex Foundation (I guess that's the most royal option, since they still have those titles.)

The only surprise here is that those two morons didn't anticipate this. They are monumentally thick and arrogant, a very bad combination for success.

Does anyone know if they registered a "Plan B" name, such as Sussex Global?

Can't they call themselves Trailer Trash?

R13-If they didn't , I guarantee someone with a wicked sense of humor just locked down Sussex Global. It's a great name.

The Real Housewife of Vancouver

Obviously, the queen is racist. I hope she realizes, "I'm not okay!"...if she even cares to ask.

They should just abbreviate to Ssux...

Sussex Global is a bit presumptuous on Dimwit and Harkle seeing that they have to build toward something global, which you don't get right off the bat possibly selling mugs and tea towels.

It's not enough to just survive. That's not what life is about. I have to thrive. Sussex Royal gives my life meaning. Don't you understand.?!

At the moment, it appears that they still have to work with:

Sussses, Duke, and Duchess.

They can probably still merch quite a bit on those if they use them cleverly, but they'll have to use Duke and Duchess more for the benefit of people for whom Sussex could mean an upscale apartment building in Manhattan - you know, "They just bought a flat in the Sussex, it's not far from the Beresford, because after all he sings at the Met so much of the season. . ."

or a famous London Hotel - The Dorchester, the Goring, the Savoy, the Langham - "The Sussex is having a fabulous Easter weekend deal - the Deluxe Ducal Suite, including English breakfast, the newspapers delivered to the door, afternoon tea for two on both days . . . all for the price of the Luxury Pleb . . ."

^*Sussex, Duke, and Duchess

Do Charles and William hate her?

Do they let the expletives fly in front of the staff?

R19-a normal person would agree with you, but come on-this is Harry and Meghan Markle.

It's good Betty Windsor is still alive to issue the BAN on Sussex Royal. Charles wouldn't have the balls to do it and might have let it pass with some pressure from Harry. But Betty ain't playin'.

But how can the British Government survive without the revenue from Harry and Meghan's Instagram account??? This is worse than Brexit!!!!

[quote]Do Charles and William hate her?

What do you think, sweetie?

Archie needs to come out & fix this mess already.

Sussex United.

R23 - I don't doubt William, Kate, Andrew, Anne, and Camilla wouldn't pee on Meghan if she were on fire.

My guess is that Charles, as Harry's father, is in a more anguished position, involving guilt as well as anger. Meghan is, after all, his grandson's mother and his son's wife. I'm sure he feels enormous regret, as does the Queen, about not showing more spine when Harry made it clear he wanted to marry a woman with Unfit for Royal Life stamped on her forehead in invisible ink.

But these people have discretion around staff pumped into them with their mother's milk. I doubt that any but close advisors here the full monty of fury at what letting Meghan in has cost them.

They lost Harry, anyway. They should have just let him go three years ago and been done with it.

R21. Dahling, you do get around. Meet me at the Savoy for tea sometime.

^*hear the full monty

Markle, Jessica Mulroney and Sunshine Sachs are plotting their revenge as we type.

Harry is looking more and more expendable by the day.

If they can't reference Sussex Royal, will they try to reference Diana instead? Queen of Hearts Foundation? Hearts Royal Foundation? Hearts Legacy Foundation?

Spencer for Hire?

People are forgetting that they CAN use Sussex. They just can't use SussexRoyal. And if you read the DM article in full, there is quite a bit in it about the legal ramifications that have to go through the Cabinet - i.e., the government. In Britain, the term "royal" just cannot be utilised the way it can in other areas, and since Harry and Meghan are utilising it in connection with their British royal connections, not just the way an American company could use it for luxury towels, they left themselves vulnerable to this.

Because, as usual, Meghan acted out by believing her fantasist notions, but without really thinking it out as far as it could go, and questioning whether she was being realistic about it. And she dragged Harry along with her.

For the moment, if they behave, they still have ducal names and Sussex.

Wouldn't William have a say in that, R34?

R34, combine the names and you have "Sussex Legacy". That fits with the grand design of their brand!

Maybe even "Sussex Milleneum".

[quote] If they can't reference Sussex Royal, will they try to reference Diana instead?

Over my dead body! This is ALL about me, Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. (I whispered 'Her Royal Highness' but you didn't hear that, did you)

[quote] This move makes me wonder if, indeed, a furious Harry will also ditch his title

He can cease using it and officially disclaim it, but he cannot "ditch" it. Unless it was a life peerage, of which there was no mention of that, the peerage is hereditary and will be held for Archie to use after his father's death. Harry has no legal right to deprive his descendants of his dukedom.

Also, if Harry were to disclaim his title, his wife would no longer be able to use hers and there is no way in hell she'll allow it.

I am tried of having to remind you queens that the correct plural is Susseces.

He left his family, his country, he should only be Harry Wales.

What would Harry's escorting fees be?

All of this makes him seem not all that bright.

Of course, she wouldn't have any idea about royal family politics. But, you'd think he would.

I wonder if the queen and Philip are having flashbacks to her youth and her uncle.

Why couldn’t he get anyone else to marry him?

That’s the real story.

These two need a Kris Jenner type figure to help them. Their all over the damn place.

All as it should be, OP ...

SussexXx

Nothing Succeeds Like Sussex

H&M -- shit, that's taken

The Sweet Smell of Sussex

R40 - Where is is written that a member of the royal family cannot voluntarily surrender his place in the line of succession for himself and his descendants?

Isn't that precisely what Edward VIII did by abdicating? Does anyone seriously think that if he and Wallis had had a son, it would suddenly have preceded the current Queen in the line of succession?

They can, in fact, do anything they like. If Harry really wants his son to live as a commoner, he can do that.

The Earl of St. Andrews automatically lost his place in the line of succession when he married a Catholic, and that isn't a life peerage, it's a hereditary title. He is the son of HRH The Duke of Kent, and St. Andrews was his father's subsidiary title.

In the event, the Earl was restored, the first time that has ever happened, with changes to the laws.

"St Andrews' wife is a Roman Catholic. According to the Act of Settlement 1701, no person who is Catholic or marries a Catholic could succeed to the throne of any country whose constitution subscribes to that Act. Therefore, from his marriage until 26 March 2015, St Andrews was barred from succession to the throne. After the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 came into effect on 26 March 2015, he is no longer barred from succession and is currently 38th in line (the most senior to be restored to the succession list), although his two older children, as Catholics, are still barred.

The Dukedom of Kent is not subject to the Act of Settlement or the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, so St Andrews' son and heir, Lord Downpatrick, is in line to become the first Roman Catholic duke or earl of Kent since the Reformation."

You can lose your place in the line of succession, and you can surrender it.

Archie could always petition to have himself reinstated at age 18.

No one thought a Prince of Wales could divorce his wife and still be on his way to a coronation as Defender of the Faith once, either.

They can make it work if they want to.

The BAN on SussexRoyal was inevitable. Come on, it doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that if you're "stepping back" from royal duties and planing to live halfway around the world taking walks in the Canadian woods (and eventually walks on the beach in Malibu--'cause that's going to happen too), then you're not royal and longer. The queen and the gray men probably didn't want to appear to be "piling on" when they disallowed the Harkles' half-in/half-out scheme along with being unable to use HRH unless the rejoined the family. The palace just figured they would give these two dimwits some breathing room for a few weeks--and then whack 'em with today's news.

The queen doesn't play those half-in/half-out games. Elizabeth is all about and ONLY ABOUT duty and service...NOT "stepping back." This ain't Hollywood, honey.

I feel sad that the Queen is having to deal with all of this shit at her age.

You should make even MORE threads about this exact topic like the one that was posted before this one

r51. She created this shit storm. She and Phil the Greek did a piss poor job of raising their family, and those kids in turn did the same thing. She should have cut this crap out years ago - now she's got a gaggle of idiotic grandchildren all trying to cash in. I don't feel sorry for the Queen - I blame her.

R50, it's not really a half-in, half-out thing. HM and the Palace have never permitted use of anything related to the family for overt moneymaking outside putative nonprofit, charitable or British/Commonwealth-economy-building/supportive work. The latter is how Andrew raked it in all these years.

The Palace and the family would have been very concerned about the wish of the untutored, slapdash Harry, under the conniving direction of his wife, insensitive of and unfamiliar with the more arcane details of how the "royal" concepts are held sacrosanct, to use their prominence as a way to become wealthier. After all, when Harry announced their "need" for privacy, he specifically cited that they wanted to make their own financial way in a manner that would leave them secure. No one is naive enough not to recognize what that meant.

It's not a punishment. It is a necessary clarification. A "brand" using the word "royal" would indicate approval. And that "Royal Sussex" brand/TM/whatever was to be a catch-all for anything they did. Obviously it was not set aside only for non-profit aspects of their work. No doubt their game would be that they would ditch a percentage of their revenue into a foundation, which many smart commoners do. And even a tithe-level contribution of 10% would leave 90% as income, upon which they would thrive mightily. Also, as a catch-all, Royal Sussex could market skin products, Markle's expanding entertainment work, ass wipes and anything else they wanted. This use contradicts the fixed guidelines in place for a century and more.

Also, the Palace knows that the Susseces will be able to rake in the money regardless of the use of "royal." So no harm to them where it matters most.

The link shows the "GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ROYAL ARMS, NAMES AND IMAGES," with additional links inside it for further information. These guidelines never anticipated the need for their application to a member of the family.

Even at their most fascist, deluded, selfish and ghastly and self-absorbedly grasping moments, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor never attempted to sell their name for "The King's Royal Gin Mixer" or "The Duchess' Piles Creme for that Royal Pain in the Arse."

I think it was a given that they'd eventually be denied the use of the "royal" moniker in marketing themselves or making independent money. Anyone could see that from space.

I'm far more curious as to whether they'll be allowed to make bank off the "Sussex" moniker, or their still-standing titles of "Duke" and "Duchess". There is still a lot of milking to be done there - will that be the next step by the BRF, to monitor or control usage of those titles? Which are currently royal ducal titles, recently gifted by TQ, and not a long-standing independent non-royal dukedom (like Marlborough or Westminster).

r46 Kris Jenner - the hardest working pimp in the game.

There's always the possibility that they knew their requests would be denied, thus setting up more of the "woe is us" narrative for the book/speaker circuit.

[quote] [R6] - No, if the Queen takes away his royal ducal title, Harry is still Prince Henry of Wales, not Mr Harry Windsor. He was Prince Henry before he was Duke of Sussex, and if he stops using Duke of Sussex. he is still HRH Prince Henry.

He is still technically HRH the Duke of Sussex, for what that's worth. But the Queen and Charles have insisted he cannot use his HRH status as part of his Megxit deal. If he uses the title against their wishes--either as Duke of Sussex or as Prince Harry of Wales--Charles might withdraw the considerable money he gives his son. But it is a moot point, since Harry has already agreed not to use HRH at all.

I betcha this is where their marriage starts running into trouble, when Harry realizes that things aren't going they way they'd expected, and that Meghan has promised more than she can deliver.

Because he's a spoiled dimwit who relies on other people to fix things for him, he relied on his wife to fix his personal unhappiness and his dissatisfaction with his ordained role, and it's not happening! He's still unhappy and he's not a billionaire and his wife has totally failed to humiliate his family! Someone's had damn well better fix this before he gets really angry!

No worries, guys! They can just get their BFFs the Trudeaus, the Obamas, Oprah and Beyonce and the Beyhive (Activated!) to demand that racist QE give them back what was stolen!

[quote]There's always the possibility that they knew their requests would be denied, thus setting up more of the "woe is us" narrative for the book/speaker circuit.

To say nothing of handing the BRF a fait accompli when they applied to trademark SussexRoyal TWO YEARS ago.

According to the Telegraph today, Meghan is going to retain the patronage of the National Theatre, and that plans are ongoing for a more "substantive project" with her over the next year.

It was my understanding that all patronages given by the Queen were going to be rescinded, and Meghan was given this one by the Queen last year. There were also a good many complaints from subscriber's that given Meghan's CV as an actress, her appointment was an insult. Many cancelled their subscriptions.

But the head of the NT has been quoted as saying this patronage will continue, which means that Meghan will be coming back to the UK to represent the Queen in some ways.

So they have not altogether been shut out.

The NT is not like the Invictus Games and Sentebale, personal patronages that were not given by the Queen.

Given Meghan's extreme unpopularity in the UK, I would say this is a bad judgement call on both the NT's and the Queen's parts.

And, given the NT's standing culturally in the country, it is unseemly to give it to someone who behaved so badly and who has so little respect for Britain and its cultural heritage.

TQ should have found someone else to hand it to.

I assume this is part of the BRF keeping up the "We don't hate her, we actually love her, see?" facade.

Supposedly, the hierarchy within the NT is uneasy about the royal patronage and rarely uses the royal moniker in their PR (but they do not outright reject the patronage because that would be disastrous from a PR perspective). They view themselves as being "demotic" and reject the concept of monarchy. All that to say, they might be continuing their relationship with Meghan as some sort of demonstration of their "woke" values - which is fairly idiotic considering Meghan gives not one whit about their craft. Meghan is only interested in Meghan.

Meghan and Harry have so damaged their own reputation that the Queen probably need not worry about keeping up that facade. At this point, they probably want to erase this whole episode from the minds of the British public. The BRF as slowly stripping Harry and Meghan of any association with the family. I am so looking forward to April 1. Given the announcement that they have lost the use of "royal", I fully expect their odious Instagram account to be decommissioned (or, at the very least, completed overhauled).

If anyone wants an amusing diversion, head over to Celebitchy. The fraus there are incandescent with rage - and mortifying stupid. They are asking what leverage the Queen actually has- why, H&M should just stick two fingers up the BRF's ass and keep using "Royal." They're too thick to comprehend the Queen can actually strip the Sussex titles. They are gloriously thick.

The NT patronage was a bone thrown politely. MM has less than zero interest in it. I feel sorry for the people at the NT who had to play along with the charade - but they *are* theater people so maybe it was exercise.

R64, but I DO wonder what the Queen can do if MM defies the ban. Do they get hauled into court for... what? Fraus? Copyright infringement?

I can’t stand those two, but what are the consequences of barging ahead?

Do Meghan and Harry even care? It seems that with their speech at the finance conference, and their talks with another bank, that they're now just in it to get rich and charities are now just an afterthought. (They've dropped the pretense.)

SussexRoyal-ish

[quote]I can’t stand those two, but what are the consequences of barging ahead?

Complete banishment from the family, for good. Complete banishment from Charles's funds (and later William's), for good.

A slow dripping trail of endless negative stories about both H&M to the UK tabloid press about every single small embarrassing thing they've ever done in their lives, over the next several years. Daily. The BRF will not protect them at all (there is some restraint still in place now, believe it or not). They and their reputations will never recover.

R69, thanks for your response. I was wondering about any legal recourse. There are certainly lots of ways they can be “punished”.

I could be wrong, but I don’t see the marriage lasting, so it may be moot anyway.

I think Meghan and Harry should sue QEII and Phillip on Judge Judy!

R66-The Queen conferred the Sussex titles upon their marriage. She can then yank them if they fail to comply. Then, she can legally go after them for using titles that have been revoked. If they are no longer the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, they are well and truly hosed. It's all they have left.

Eh, I don’t think the TITLE is what’s valuable to them. Harry will always be a “prince of the blood” and Diana’s son (something upon which he’s trading heavily). Even if they’re just Meghan and Harry, they’ll have a bit of martyr cachet.

But all that rests upon them remaining a couple...

Why the fuck do they think people want a pencil or mug with this silly brand? We're they just going to sell them at all these speaking engagements?

Since the big meanie Queen wouldnt let us be part-time royals, we're going off to be Sussex Global now, with Daddy paying our way. So there.

[R64], but I DO wonder what the Queen can do if MM defies the ban.

They won't.

If she defied the ban, Charles would yank their money.

[quote]Harry will always be a “prince of the blood” and Diana’s son (something upon which he’s trading heavily). Even if they’re just Meghan and Harry, they’ll have a bit of martyr cachet.

Yes that will always be there, true, but the question is how much can he 'cash in' on it, and become 'financially independent' as they've promised? Just being "Diana's son" and prince of the blood isn't really enough to get by in the long term. There has to be a backup plan lying around, one would think.

The trademark SussexRoyal was given to them only because they were had the actual titles of Sussex and royal; now the queen has withdrawn their use of royal, they can't use it in the UK.

When the Duke of Windsor abdicated and married Wallis Simpson, his brother George VI refused to allow her to use the title HRH, and issued letters patent to that effect. Of course the Windsors had their servants address her as HRH and bow or curtsy, and their friends did too to be nice; but it sttill drove them absolutely crazy she was officially not royal, and they complained bitterly about it for the rest of their lives.

The one thing the sovereign DOES have legal authority over is titles. Of course in the US they could call themselves whatever they like, but so could you or I: I could call myself "HRH, the Duke of Earl" and insist people refer to me as such, but that doesn't mean they will or that it has any legal standing.

It doesn’t even matter if they go ahead and use the titles, really. The Queen’s wishes are made known.

Fish and Chip

Ginge and Cringe Inc.

Woke Are Us Foundation

Drift & Grift Co.

Diana Is Dead

Everyone Is Racist

No Surviving, Yes Thriving

Smash & Grab Inc.

“ spent tens of thousands of pounds on a new Sussex Royal website.” Oh MY! WHATEVER will they do to ever recover that kind of money!

Bait & Switch

Scratch & Sniff

How are they going to address this on their now misnomered website? Oy, welcome to the website of Hazza and Meg, your source for all things Hazza and Meg, ex-Royals extraordinaire. Here the tea isn't always served sweet and inviting but bitter with disdainful envy. You'll find that this website will be undergoing a lot of changes in the upcoming days. Besides name change, this website won't be updated as often due to the fact that we've spent our quarterly budget on setting it up surreptitiously, and our Highgrove benefactor won't lend us any more money on top of our living allowance. So unless our Russian overlord (or JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) bails us out, we're screwed. Hazza will have to get an actual job driving a lorry or I will have to go back to making slutty barbecue videos.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote] but I DO wonder what the Queen can do if MM defies the ban.

The courts will have to battle it out, but in the meantime until a decision is handed down, the ban would continue. The Queen's legal advisors have endless financial resources to draw from and Meghan (and Harry) do not. If they fight it, they will be ruined financially even before the case(s) are settled.

And once Charles becomes King, another threat becomes a reality. Whether M and H want Archie to be known as a Prince and a Royal Highness, or by a lesser title such as the case of Edward's children, Archie's legal position will be as a British Prince and a Royal Highness. Combined with being a grandchild of the Sovereign in the male line, Charles has the legal right to insist Archie reside in Britain until he reaches the age of 18. The monarch can assume guardianship of any blood member of their family at any time. It wouldn't be a popular thing to do taking a child from it's mother, but yes Charles could do it unless Meghan decides to tone down her grifting.

The Queen can yank the titles and styles (Duke of Sussex is the title; HRH is the "style") but I doubt she will.

I'm not sure what the endgame aim is re these two for the BRF but I don't think it's total annihilation. They still have Sussex, Duke and Duchess of. The loss of their BP offices is meaningless, so is the end of their staff there. They are clearly going to be based either in Canada or America, with careful photo ops in Britain to keep the unspoken message alive: "We still ARE British royalty!"

I think it's obvious that this is what the Queen wants, as well, by all odds for the sake of her grandson, not his wife.

For all the grandstanding and title disappointments, etc., etc., and the delusional wrath of the fraus on Celebitchy, Meghan and Harry appear to have gotten a goodly slice of cake: they can ditch almost all the royal shit they hated doing, lick the icing off the cake, i.e., get funded by Charles' money for awhile, still parade themselves as British royalty, and get to set up their own businesses in North America in whatever cackhanded way they want, and they'll still be rich by anyone else's standards and go on milking celebrity till the world is tired of them.

And I doubt they can call themselves anything they want in America. There are probably legal threats to them doing so.

So what. They'll do SussexNoble or SussexGlobal or the H&MSussex Foundation and be just fine.

Really, reading Celebitchy you'd think the Queen had taken it all away and sent them to the Tower to await trial.

Archie, and here we go again, will not be an HRH because all Charles has to do is issue Letters Patent to the effect that, in accordance with his parents' wishes, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will continue in the title and style of Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, or Earl Dumbarton, his father's subsidiary title, which he already enoys."

Period, end of.

After The Queen dies, Charles can handle things as he sees fit. He’s not under any obligation to model his short reign based on his mother’s. If he wants to issue LP to Archie he’ll do it. It he wants to issue LP to strip Harry of his HRH or to demote Me! to the rank of wife of regular duke (her grace) he could do that too. He’ll be the fountain of all honors.

R88, the monarch's ability to take custody can't possibly apply to a US citizen, can it?

Because that right is something that could work against Charles. If Meg becomes fearful that Charles wants custody, the obvious step is to keep him out of British and commonwealth territories. I mean she's probably looking for a reason to keep Arch away from his paternal relatives anyway, you've just given her one.

Upcoming engagements for Harry and/or Meghan from March 5-9:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will attend the Endeavor Fund Awards on Thursday 5th March.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will attend the Mountbatten Festival of Music at Royal Albert Hall on Saturday 7th March.

The Duchess of Sussex will mark international Women’s Day with an appearance on Sunday 8th March.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will join members of the Royal Family for a service at Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day on Monday 9th March.

The end game for these two seems to be living in Los Angeles and hobnobbing with the celebrity and business elite.

R92 - Archie was born in England so he's a British citizen too.

if only Me! took a page from the playbooks of Princess Marie of Denmark, Princess Sofia/Duchess of Varmland of Sweden, or Princess Laurentien of The Netherlands: all married spares, all kept their heads down and got to work, and none are particularly reviled in their adopted countries.

Princess Marie is not only married to the spare, she's his second wife, after a first wife who was universally liked by the Danes, and stepmother to the two children from the first marriage. She has done brilliantly with it, too.

R97 has an excellent point about First Wife, she was the first WOC to marry into the Danish royal family, and Princess Alexandra was very popular. So it IS possible to be a non-white princess and make it work in a white family of an ancient dynasty, despite what Meghan’s stans might say.

R98 - Prince Joachim's first wife, Alexandra, was Anglo-Chinese. She had a fantastic education, was bi-lingual, and learned Danish incredibly quickly, and until Crown Prince Frederik finally married at 36, for the years leading up to that was the only young royal female the DRF had. The breakdown of their marriage came as a complete shock to the Danish public because it had all been kept so discreetly under wraps. The announcement, however, had to wait till after the Heir's wedding, which means that the entire DRF knew at Frederik's and Mary's wedding that Joachim and Alexandra were already over.

The divorce was handled with speed and complete lack of fireworks. Alexandra then married a much younger man, but that didn't last more than a few years. She did lose her HRH style and Princess title but was made Countess of Frederiksborg. Queen Margrethe was allegedly very fond of her, as she allegedly is of her two current daughters-in-law.

R98 - Don't forget the lovely Princess Angela of Lichtenstein, the first black woman to marry into a reigning European royal family. She also married a younger son, has after some early bumps earned the appreciation of the family, and owned her own design house prior to her marriage to Prince Alois. She was Panamanian by birth, and designed and made her own wedding dress . . .

which looked, on Princess Angela, the way Meghan's dress should have looked. Angela's dress aimed for the same simple lines - only it was beautifully tailored and fitted. She is still a very chic, savvy dresser.

Like Meghan, Angela is very petite. I think she is also much prettier, there is a real genuine warmth in her expression.

There are photos of the two wedding dresses side by side, it's amazing how similar they are.

But you didn't see any dangling tendrils on the bride!

I don't think Charles would open the viper's nest that an Archie custody battle would be. If the boy were closer to the throne it would be one thing, but he's not really important to the succession at all. No way they're going to give Meghan a chance to play Martyred Mother to the whole world. Not over the seventh in line.

The family all seem very detached from Archie. They probably all knew the marriage was short lived and that Archie would grow up in the USA anyway so why bother to form an attachment?

Heckle & Jeckyll.

Maybe Harry can get a job at Grace Bros.

R103, that is squarely on the heads of Meghan and Harry.

I absolutely agree, R105. Just noting it to say that I don't think the BRF have any vested interest in bringing Archie back to the UK. They would resign themselves to losing Archie if it means they are well rid of Meghan, too. Everything surrounding that poor tyke is just weird.

Charles probably is well aware of the futility and bad PR of a custody struggle over Archie. Just the same, it IS his grandson and I'm sure he would have liked a relationship more like the one he has with William's children.

For the child's sake, hopefully, it will never come to that either for Charles or Harry.

I don't think all this matters much to Harry and Meghan. There are unlimited branding possibilities, other than this title or that. I'd love to be in their position - Meghan's position rather (on my back or knees).

Dumbass author of this article in Forbes.

The tedious Titles Troll is at R40 and elsewhere, with her poorly written, patronising rants about Letters Patent and who can/cannot use HRH.

Well, as could have been predicted, the news turns out to be not nearly as drastic as the headlines trumpeted. The BRF are, in fact, still bending over backwards for this pair of grifters.

They can't use the word "royal", that seems very much a done deal at this point, but they're returning to the UK for a spate of events AND they are expected at the Trooping of the Colour in June AND Harry is retaining his three military "earned" titles and they're leaving the door open for him to return to his military appointments after a year, so they aren't filling his other appointments yet AND Meghan is going to on with at least ONE of the patronages the Queen gave her, and . . .

All this is to help the Sussexes help the world to remember that even if they can't call themselves royal they BLOODY WELL ARE! Because, just look at them up there with the Queen smiling fondly at them, look at them chatting smilingly with Kate and Zara and the Queen on the balcony of BP . . . why, of course, they're ROYAL. Plain as the nose on your face!

If the Palace thinks for a moment the real message here will be lost on the public, they're mistaken, and not for the first time.

A large slice of cake, the bakery door still open, no worries financially, and not too effort re working off the tab for the baker.

^*not too much effort

Sussex locals must be pissed off, that by googling ‘Sussex’, these two should appear on top. Meghan has spent no more than a whopping six hours in this county.

R109 yes that writer is a dumb ass - and an INFLUENCER - we are doomed.

R115 No we're not. Why would the title "influencer" make anyone else think they have something important to say?

The only way anyone is doomed is if they start believing shit like what Jeetender writes.

And unfortunately, R115, many folks do.....that's all I meant.....maybe we're just semi-doomed.....

The problem with influencers is that they tend to be mediocre people who promote mediocre crap to people who already have too much mediocrity in their lives. I’ve never heard Meghan say anything original; she’ll just end up being a Goop clone.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

If Meghan isn't being seen in public, or at her various engagements, IMHO it's because the designers of the world aren't offering her enough money to be photographed wearing their stuff.

I wonder how long it'll be before she realizes they aren't coming calling, and starts offering them bargains? And then begging for freebies?

That fake text exchange is just embarrassing.

Jon Bon Jovi? That's just sad.

I know Harry probably isn't familiar with American culture, but Bon Jovi was always very white trash.

He’s just about the era and level of fame that Meghan seems to be stuck on. Passé, but everyone still knows who they are. Like Oprah, Gayle, Clooney.

The Queen and Charles must be truly sad and worried for Harry, mixed up with these people.

Bon jovi must be in the Sunshine Sachs stable.

R124, this is, in fact, true.

Yes, it's true: JBJ is part of the Sachs stable.

And as another aside, the Endeavour Awards on 5 March, which Meghan is alleged to be attending, takes place on the last day of Kate's and William's three-day tour of Ireland - another instance of the BRF allowing Meghan to trample a Cambridge news cycle.

Or perhaps it was arranged that way so that the Cambridges would have a legit excuse to not have to attend, and hence rub shoulders with TRASHY Sussex morons. The Cambridges don't want the to catch virulent Harklitosis.

R127 - I must admit I hadn't thought of that. That means that the Cambridges only have to do the forced smiles on Commonwealth Day.

R126

That Queen needs to stand down.

Would the Cambridges have been obliged to attend, r127? It's a Harry thing, I don't think William was ever involved.

R126, the date for the Endeavour Awards was probably set a long, long time ago and it's not Harry or Meghan who set the dates. What is adjustible is a trip to Ireland, but it doesn't matter because different royals can do different things on the same day, there's no conspiracy or one upmanship.

In any case, the Endeavour Fund is yet one more organisation that Harry's disappointed.

Jan Moir of the DM managed to throw some shade at Meghan today in her article on the total silence of all the Woke Show Biz types and their podium protests re the grooming gangs in Britain.

Excerpt:

"JAN MOIR: Why don't posturing pop stars ever protest over grooming gangs? By JAN MOIR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 19:39 EST, 20 February 2020 | UPDATED: 19:41 EST, 20 February 2020

". . . . Yet there is one area of widespread persecution and criminality in the UK on which they all remain silent — the abuse of white working-class girls by Asian grooming gangs.

Over recent years, hundreds of vulnerable girls have been traumatised, broken, abused, raped, left unable to get on with their lives — but no high-profile crusader speaks for them, do they?

No actor dedicates his or her trophy to them, no duchess pops a concerned head over the parapet of their anguish.

. . . . These offences took place in Huddersfield, but we have been here before — in Rochdale, Bradford, Rotherham, Oldham, Halifax, Nottingham, Telford, Newcastle, Derby, Bristol, Birmingham, Peterborough and elsewhere.

It is a contagion, a disgrace — yet don't expect the ongoing trauma suffered by these girls to get a mention when there are far more fashionable causes to get angry about.

So you must forgive me for feeling rather cynical when Dave the rapper gets into his solid groove about the race issues affecting this country today.

For if these victims had been black schoolgirls targeted by gangs of white men, there would be rioting on the streets. Or a few verses from Dave or Stormzy at the very least.

Perhaps a calming bananagram from Meghan, an invite to stay in Lily Allen's party barn, a message of sympathy from Oprah. . . ."

FWIW - This is one of the few columns lately where the comments, probably of necessity, have been moderated.

The shade in that Moir article is two-fold: first, she groups Meghan with pop stars, and then she mentions the bananagrams toward the end.

There is also yet another piece up about yet another piece of property that the Harkles COULD be thinking of buying, this time a $7 million number in Malibu, because they are so KEEN to relocate to Meghan's home stomping grounds . . .

They do this periodically, just the way every few months they scream, "Kate COULD be pregnant again: here are the signs!" and then, of course, she isn't.

Swipe for the newest house buying rumor regarding the Sussexes.

but, but, Meghansy-poo, where will I stable the polo ponies?

That sussex.

The Sussex Royal brand is no more.

Discussion came up over the week about Meghan's ongoing patronage (which is not a private one, but one given to her by the Queen) of the National Theatre, and an article in the Telegraph with a quote by Rufus Norris, the NT's Director, that he was looking forward to working with her on a "substantive project" over the coming year.

The Guardian has a piece up on Norris's extension of contract by five years, and ends with this surprising paragraph:

". . . He also denied reports of a rift between the theatre and its patron Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, saying there was “ongoing, very productive dialogue with the duchess and her team”."

Take that as you will, but it certainly doesn't suggest that Meghan is bailing her UK presence, or that the BRF is pushing her out (although the latter would be your impression upon reading Kaiser's idiotic column today on the door being left "ajar" for Harry but not Meghan, which deliberately omits that that was only in reference to Harry's honorary military connections, not to an open invitation to Harry to leave his wife so he could return to the BRF fold).

It's certainly possible that Meghan does feel "fed up" and could cut off those talks with the NT if she wants to bail, but at the moment, it looks to me like the DM story is a leak by an enemy, not a friend, of the Sussexes.

R138, I read Norris’s phrasing as subtle shade and chuckled a bit. “Productive”, eh...

Agree, r139.

Sounds like they stuck her in development hell.

[QUOTE] an article in the Telegraph with a quote by Rufus Norris, the NT's Director, that he was looking forward to working with her on a "substantive project" over the coming year.

Norris didn't mention any projects himself. That came from a "royal source", who also said such plans were provisional.

In other news, Catherine Cambridge wins Queen’s approval to trademark name Cambridge Royal for a lifestyle brand.

R141 - "Then there is the fallout from last month’s bombshell news that the NT’s royal patron, the Duchess of Sussex, was, along with her husband, scaling down her royal duties. “National Theatre bosses were left fuming,” a paper proclaimed the following day. “A complete fiction,” Norris now retorts. “From our perspective, I don’t think it’s going to change anything.”"

From a separate article:

"Describing reports that executives were left "fuming" at the revelation their royal patron would be leaving Britain to build a new life in North America as "total fiction", he said: "She is still very engaged, the conversations are regular and ongoing, there are ideas we are exploring."

It is understood the Duchess will liaise further with the theatre in March, when she and the Duke make a brief visit to Britain for the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey."

It's true that the phrase "a much more substantive project" was attributed (as "confirmed" yet), by a royal source, but given Norris' comments, it sure doesn't sound to me as if Meghan is leaving her work in the UK behind, at least, not one with this big a name.

R138, Meghan's connections with the NT are pretty non-existent. It's not like she actively does anything or has to do anything. There's not much she can do from abroad anyway.

What exactly do you think Meghan does for the NT r143 and how big do you think its name is? It's not like the NT can't actually function without her, it doesn't need her at all and her presence at the occasional function will probably be far more detrimental to it.

Thread opened to search for the new name: New Name Needed for the Brand Formerly Known as SussexRoyal.

What did she ever do for the National Theatre? Did she ever attend performances or workshops or ceremonies or ANYTHING? I don’t recall seeing her do a damn thing for them.

They’re probably relieved to see the back of her.

R143 All of those actual quotes from Norris just sound like the normal platitudes to me. If that part about a project wasn't in the same article, would you still genuinely hold the same opinion?

R147 I think she did one backstage photo op and that's it. The Norris interview contains a line about it:

[QUOTE]She’s less interested in coming here and going to a string of press nights. It's a really in-depth engagement with the range of work we do.

So in-depth that she doesn't even attend the productions it stages. So engaged that she's not mentioned once on the NT website.

It's rather insulting to the National Theatre that a shit D-List cable actress would be their patron. I would be offended by that if I belonged to that organization.

R149 There's a part of me that wonders if that's why Liz gave her the patronage - a subtle fuck you to the National. After all, they never call themselves the Royal National Theatre, I don't recall them holding any royal gala type events, she wasn't at the 50th anniversary event, etc.

Well, it seems foolish of Norris to drop platitudes that have a real chance of leaving him with egg on his face.

But it would stand to reason that she'd desperately want to keep this on patronage out of the four the Queen gave her. It's the highest profile one and if they want to keep dibs on Frogmore Cottage and Charles' money, perhaps this is one of the bona fides.

After all, Harry is very likely coming back through that "door ajar" to pick up his honorary military appointments again.

I dunno - a good deal of this still smells like a giant panto to me.

R150 - Now that's a novel way of looking at it!

"No more Royal Theatre? Here: here is the least royal patron you could hope to have!"

William obviously loathes her. If she and Harry are still married when William becomes kind, it's going to get ugly.

It is with pleasure the National Theatre announces a production of the Female Version of Neil Simon's comedy THE ODD COUPLE to star Meghan Duchess of Sussex and Sarah Ferguson Duchess of York.

The production will have a six month try-out in Liverpool, Blackpool, and the hinterlands before giving a performance in the amphitheater at Grace Bros. Dept Store and then opening in triumph at a matinee performance on Sunday, August 16, 2020. Tickets are still very available for all performances.

In scratching around some other corners of the web where the Sussexes are being discussed, it appears that people who claim very good sources have a very different view of things. These sites, which include Royal Foible and FromBerkshiretoBuckingham blogspot, insist that whilst everyone focuses on the banning of SussexRoyal, and interpret it as the Queen finally playing hardball, the real centrepiece of this whole fiasco is right in front of everyone's eyes but not getting much attention: the Windsors think there's a very good chance that Harry and Meghan will return to the fold in a year's time, having tasted the frigid air of life on a pinnacle with no support but their own flimsy efforts, and suddenly remembering what a warm, cosy place Frogmore Cottage is.

The gushing loving language the Queen used, the long delay in announcing what was perfectly obvious from the beginning about the use of the word "royal", the "storing" rather than yanking the couple's titles, the sudden murmuring about Harry possibly in a year returning to reclaim the honorary military appointment so dear to his heart, the end-year "review", Meghan retaining the NT patronage, the expectation that H&M are expected at the Trooping the Colour, are all evidence that the family has a shrewd idea that Harry and Meghan may really return when they find out how hard it is to make a living out there in the Big, Bad, World.

By blunting their use of their HRHs, and removing their ability to use "royal", the Palace has, of course, made things more difficult out there for H&M - not to destroy them, according to these sites (TATLER, whose royal sources are alleged to be impeccable, is of a similar mind), but to reel them gently back in when the defeated Harkles decide to come home, because the BRF really want them both back - particularly Charles. The problem is that H&M, if they want to rebrand, can't sit around waiting to do so.

I think it's an interesting position to take. Those gleefully assuming that all this means The End Of Duchess Meghan And Her Gingy Lapdog may be in for a shock when 2021 rolls around. I can see why they'd want Harry and Archie back, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why they would want Meghan back: she has been catastrophic to their image and their family relationships.

Excerpt below from - From Berkshire to Buckingham:

"The Palace appears to be trying to maintain and mothball as much of Harry and Meghan’s royal life as possible so the two can take it back up again with relative ease.

. . . . the most interesting aspect of all this is probably what it hints at with respect to the internal thought-process. The long hesitation from the Palace, and this additional news that Harry’s military roles won’t be filled during the test period, make me wonder… Is the Palace very optimistic that the couple will return? Or are the Sussexes hedging their bets as strongly as possible? Because the real news this week is not so much any individual point—like the Sussexes can’t keep ‘royal’ in their branding—but rather how important this test period actually is. It isn’t an escape clause that has been casually included at the end of the Sandringham Summit agreement as an after-thought, it seems to be (or have become) the centerpiece—the focus."

So, what say you, DLers?

R155– They have to welcome Meghan back if she wants to come back or they’d be accused of all sorts. They’re just hoping that she’ll have burned so many bridges with the British public by then, there would be no realistic way she’d be able to come back

R156 - The thing is, they can't get Harry back without getting Meghan back, as well. It may be that that is a risk they're willing to take to get Harry and Archie back.

Meghan has continued since her departure to leak nothing but vicious stories about life in the BRF, how soul-crushing it was, how much happier she is to be out of there, continuing to step on other royals' news cycles . . . the BRF can't simply allow the Harkles to take "garden leave" for a year, only to announce suddenly that they've come back, are again on the public dole, but this time to a reduced degree to avoid the poor dears becoming too stressed again, and anyway, Meghan is having another baby . . .

I don't know. I don't see how they could possible work it. The British public really dislike her, now. And what about all the money and fuss they caused, and the rest of the family's ill-will, especially William's toward Meghan?

I can't see it, but I did find it in a few places as a considered opinion.

R156, going by bitchy shots at the Cambridges and the Queen in the most recent posting on the Sussex website, it appears that Meghan does not see herself as ever coming back.

R158 - I'd have thought so myself, but FWIW the Express had a similar piece up in early February, claiming that the BRF had made "contingency plans" to let the couple back in if their Canada plans didn't work out.

They might be able to force it down the Camridges', Yorks', and Anne's throats - but the public? It seems unlikely, given that Meghan has made rude remarks about the British "stiff upper lip".

If there were bridges left standing, Meghan certainly hasn't shown any reluctance to throw a few matches onto them.

Re the patronage discussion, it now appears, as stated on the newest updated version of the Sussex website, that the two ARE being allowed to retain not only their private patronages, but their royal ones, as well (i.g., given them by the Queen). So the BRF yet again sent out confusing messages: if they are not to be allowed to represent the Queen or the Commonwealth come 1 April, isn't continuing to hold a royal patronage a form of representation?

R158 - Yes, that is a pointedly bitchy note about the Cambridges, and it is also a lie: the Cambridges never intended to merchandise their trademark, whilst the Sussexes did intent to turn it into a source of independent financing.

And, I note on the web site the very clear notation that they are, STILL, ROYAL HIGHNESSES.

Hmmm. I begin to believe the BRF have continued on their self-destructive, blinkered path with these two. They have left them far too much scope for people who have "left" the Firm.

The site sounds bitter. Why the fuck would the BRF want these two vipers back?!

That Instagram statement is very grand, almost certainly Meghan’s voice. And oh dear, no need to use “but” and “however” in the same sentence, unless you’re trying to sound extra-important.

“ but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages”

r158 God damn that website design is annoying. I'm trying to read what you're up to I don't need flying text.

R161 - Yes, it's Meghan's voice, all right.

Maintain my opinion that the BRF have handled these two, and this situation - call it abysmally, incredibly, horribly, whatever you like.

They haven't been punished much, at all, just stymied. They sound as ungrateful, petulant, and petty as ever they did.

The Queen has been a fool not to just kick them out and let them freeze out there.

I still think they're leaving the door open for a divorced Harry, not Harry & Meghan. If he divorces Meghan and returns to the fold, he might be able to recover much of his lost popularity. Particularly if he makes a wiser second marriage and has more children.

"...the real centrepiece of this whole fiasco is right in front of everyone's eyes but not getting much attention: the Windsors think there's a very good chance that Harry and Meghan will return to the fold in a year's time, having tasted the frigid air of life on a pinnacle with no support but their own flimsy efforts..."

I think it will take a LOT longer than a year for those two to give up their attempt to be billionaires in their own right, if they make any money at all and I presume they'll make enough to give them false hope. I'd personally give it... five years. By which time Charles may well be king, or regent.

And yes, Charles will probably want to make every effort to keep lines of communication between him and his son and grandson open, both for personal reasons and to maintain his image, and to maintain the Royal Family's reputation. It doesn't look good for them to have a loose cannon wayward son out there.

They're not taking any potshots at the Cambridges, they're just trying to justfy why they applied to trademark Sussex Royal.

The statement on their website was written by palace lawyers and Harry's British lawyers. You're crazy if you think Meg had anything to do with it. That's the style of Royal announcements.

Maybe they figure King Charles will be a softer touch, eventually.

R166, I prefer to think that phrases such as "their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to" would not get past most lawyers.

R168 - I agree. That's not lawyer-speak, that's Meghan-speak.

And if the lawyers approved the dig at the Cambridges, they should be sacked.

By the way, for people who think those HRHs don't mean anything, that pretty headgear they display over their initials is not a crown, but a royal ducal coronet.

If the Queen had revoked Harry's ducal title, they would no longer be able to use it.

"royal dukes are entitled to princely coronets (four cross pattées alternating with four strawberry leaves). The coronets of the royal family are dictated by letters patent. The Duke of York bears by letters patent, and the Duke of Edinburgh was granted in 1957 use of, the coronet of a child of the sovereign (four crosses patées alternating with four fleurs-de-lis)[28], while the Duke of Cornwall and of Rothesay has use of the Prince of Wales Coronet, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex the coronet of a child of the heir-apparent"

So the symbolism is a bit more potent than people think, which is why the Queen would have to be pushed to the wall to rescind it, and I doubt she will.

The only way Meghan loses that title is in the event of a divorce before she becomes a UK citizen.

So unless they give them up voluntarily, you lot can forget that happening.

Their whole insignia would go down the loo, as well. And you can bet your arse Meghan doesn't want to lose THAT.

"We had hoped to be allowed to share these details with you sooner (to mitigate any confusion and subsequent misreporting), but the facts below should help provide some clarification around this transition . . ."

That wasn't exactly tactful, either.

If the BRF thinks these two should be welcomed back with open arms, than they are even more foolish than I suspected.

I don't see it.

[quote]I prefer to think that phrases such as "their cause driven work that they remain deeply committed to" would not get past most lawyers.

It wouldn't get past most grammarians either. "their cause-driven work to which they remain deeply committed". Is that correct?

At this point, why not just use first person tense instead of third person tense. You know, the royal 'we'.....

R171, yes. I think some sections of it are based on a legal document, but other sections are PR work.

PR and legal work hand in hand. PR writes the copy and legal will review.

Meghan is someone who is very driven to EXPRESS herself. I think that’s key to her personality.

R175, Would that be with calligraphy, or with a very special SussexRoyale™ briefcase? I don't believe the SussexRoyale™ Rimchair is destined for approval.

The thought of the Suits supporting player conferring with the fancy British theater on their work is a laugh. I wonder why the director of the theater goes along with the farce. I did read somewhere that he mentioned she has "star reach"--maybe he expects her to get her wedding guest list to attend premieres?

Or get them to donate money - that's the whole point of having a patron after all.

Meghan will not go groveling back to England if this doesn’t work. Are you kidding? She’ll sleep in a bus station before she goes to live at Frogmore.

The only way she’d go back is if Harry became king through some terrible tragedy.

Harry will go back with his tail between his legs when/if Meghan is finished with him.

I spy a Sunshine Sachist.

Take a look at R350 on the BANNED - Sussex Royal brand is OFF LIMITS thread for the best explanation I've seen on any of these threads about why people are angry at H&M and despise them both, that is, those with some sense of history who aren't caught up in the nonsensical racial cloak that so many have tried to throw over this otherwise glaringly obvious debacle.

The post should be carved in stone and set up in the garden outside Frogmore Cottage.

For better or worse, Meghan is like a shark who has to keep moving forward. In some ways, always looking ahead and up is a great thing, so it’s not purely criticism of her.

I don’t see her ever going back to be a royal duchess and fitting herself into those boxes. She tried it and it’s not her thing. Harry wants out, too, so let them move on.

It does seem to be prudent (and generous) to leave the door open for him. And Archie, of course, but he’s not going back, either.

R181, your post at r350 on the other thread is completely wrong. Before anything, the monarch is the head of state of the UK (note: NOT the head of government) who is the sovereign representative of the nation and its government. They are part of the British constitution.

Americans with an executive president might struggle to grasp what this means, but there is very little desire in UK to change this system. The royal family and the monarch will be around for a very long time, well past George's grand children's grandchildren. Yes, perhaps it will be "slimmed down", whatever that means, but it's not going anywhere.

R177 - "The thought of the Suits supporting player conferring with the fancy British theater on their work is a laugh."

Yes, that was the problem at the outset, and why many subscribers complained and cancelled their subscriptions.

I suppose Norris was between a rock and a hard place. He wasn't entirely wrong, it's just that her "star reach" is now more a matter of notoriety than actual "stardom" in the normal sense. It's not as if she has been for years an intimate of the A-list theatre/film crowd.

The purpose of a patron is to highlight the work of the organisation and to bring in money and other patrons by having their names on the letterhead, attending galas, performances, being seen to value the work the organisation is doing.

It's not to do "substantive 'projects'" with the organisation, because once a patron starts getting too involved, there is a risk of patron interference. It happens on Board of Directors all the time, especially when the Founders are on the Boards.

Norris said what he had to in case she stays on, in which event he'll milk the "diversity angle" to the max, and if she doesn't stay on, he'll have suitably covered his arse with soppy bona fides, and privately hope they hand the patronage on to another high-visible royal, like William or Kate.

And wouldn't THAT put the cat amongst the pigeons over at CB!

The Telegraph has a (needless to say, no comments allowed) piece up on how the Sussex "line" differs from the Palace "line", comparing statements put out by the Palace and the Sussexes themselves as to what the "agreement" stated.

Per the discussion above re the NT patronage, compare,the original statement by the Queen with the one the Sussexes put up yesterday, as outlined in the Telegraph piece:

"Patronages PALACE: With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations.

SUSSEX: It was agreed that The Duke and Duchess will no longer be able to formally carry out ‘official duties’ for The Queen or represent The Commonwealth, but they will, however, be allowed to maintain their patronages (including those that are classified as ‘royal’ patronages)."

This is what I meant when I said the Palace had done a terrible job communicating with the public, as conflicting messages were sent out repeatedly, the patronage issue and Harry's honorary military appointments being the two most glaring ones.

Private patronages (e.g., the Invictus Games, Sentebale, the Hub Kitchen connection for Meghan) and royal patronages (e.g., the National Theatre) are not equivalencies, as even the Sussexes make clear in their statement.

So, either the agreement was amended, which Rufus Norris's statements on working with Meghan this year seem to support, or varied "sources" are trying to turn a wish into a fait accompli.

There seem to be too many cooks in this PR kitchen.

I really really really would love to have Trevor's take on all this.

Perhaps the BRF is not interested in clear communication but in negotiating Harry's return via the press, i.e., if you come back (without the succubus) you can have all of your old patronages and military appointments. Meanwhile, Meghan supposedly gets to keep her patronages but has already been told by the National Theatre that she's got until Easter to make or break the patronage. I imagine the other patronages will quietly disassociate from her. One day one of them will remove her mention from their website, it will make a small blip in the press for about a day, and then life will go on. The remaining ones will follow.

Harry is now Meghan's only remaining champion. No one else will publicly come to her defense. The BRF need only get Harry back and then Meghan will be nothing but an annoying gnat. If they are offering her a settlement behind the scenes, she should take it now. The number will only continue to decrease.

[quote] If they are offering her a settlement behind the scenes, she should take it now. The number will only continue to decrease.

Uh, not quite. Archie is her trump card, which she will play to maximize her exit. He's nothing but a hostage to Megs ego and avarice.

I don't think they're going to get Harry back any time soon, if ever. That's a granny fantasy, to have everyone quietly in place before she dies. Harry hates them more than Markle does.

R189, that’s the truth!

Harry may hate them, but to be relevant, he needs them, too.

I don't know if Harry "hates" them at all. He seemed very upset that he wasn't given the option of remaining half-in, half-out of the family. He'd always had a good relationship with with the Queen, and usually has been close with his brother. I can see finding Charles to be exasperating, but he supports Harry financially. Harry's grudge, if he has one, is with the press.

R192: And that's not one he'll be able to do much about it, is it?

His efforts to have no critical - but only fawning - coverage are doomed before they start.

That, and her grifting, are why they're so unpopular.

[quote] Meghan is someone who is very driven to EXPRESS herself. I think that’s key to her personality.

I suppose that's why no one bothered to ask her if she's okay.

He hates them as evidenced by his nasty addendum statement, resulting in headlines like "Megan And Harry Call BS On the Queen" on TMZ. His raging response appeared just hours after the initial announcement and was calculated to do more damage to the relationship.

I'm beginning to think his supposed closeness with gran and bro was just another construct courtesy of ELF.

[quote]It's not to do "substantive 'projects'" with the organisation...

Not true. Project doesn't mean a play or a show. A project could be a gala to raise money or even something like performances at local schools to raise awareness amongst the next generation.

[QUOTE]So, either the agreement was amended, which Rufus Norris's statements on working with Meghan this year seem to support, or varied "sources" are trying to turn a wish into a fait accompli.

Once again, Norris did not say anything about working with her this year, that came from a "royal source". Given you've already been corrected about this in this thread, it's clear you're not making a mistake but deliberately lying.

The National Theatre was such a wasted opportunity. Meghan could have thrown herself into that patronage and founded an annual gala that would rival the Met's. But she didn't get the tiara or the castle she wanted, so she refused to do her part. What an asshole.

Then they posted this: “ The statement read: '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.'”

It’s ON, bitches!

You’re not the boss of me!

R199 Or put another way: "We've been told not to or we'll be kicked off the gravy train."

R196 - All those major cultural organisations that get funding from the Arts Council already do those schools programmes. The RoH, the Royal Ballet, the NT, major museums, orchestras, etc., they all do those in-school programmes as well as bringing school children in to see rehearsals, exhibtions, etc.

The fundraising and galas are what she is supposed to be doing. I don't know what sort of "project" the "royal source" or Norris had in mind, but given Meghan's track record of loving to insert herself into the front line of high visibility projects (e.g., the Smart Works design wear and the VOGUE Magazine editorship), I would be quite surprised if it were galas and help with donor cultivation.

R202 - Oh, and add to that list the HUB Kitchen book, whose preface she wrote and that mentioned herself or the word "I" something like 140 times.

Meghan isn't interested in "projects" that don't put her front and centre.

Looking at video of Meghan, she has such a common manner about her, as well as the way she speaks. She's totally unsuited to high-profile, elite gala events.

I live in LA, and I would say it's an LA demeanor, R204. I don't think it's "common," per se, but it's not regal.

R69, And also out comes the complete file on MM.

R171, Your version is correct, except for needing this:

"[T]heir......."

Harry and Meghan won't give up on each other any time soon, without him she's just another LA ex-wife, and without her, he will have nobody to tell him what to do.

He's had it with letting Charles and William tell him what to do, and he'll never consider thinking for himself. He'll probably leave her for the next woman who listens to him whine and promises to make it all better.

The Duke of Windsor also needed Wallis to tell him what to do.

R132, Nobody in any sphere whatsoever speaks out about the "grooming gangs" because the criminals are all Muslim men. Or, as the DM calls them, "Asians."

R132 - it pains me to side with Jan Moir, but she makes a good point here.

They will do just as well by branding themselves Meghan and Harry. Probably better in a country like the US which doesn't give a fuck about royalty or titles.

Unseen of R204 at a rally.

Blow it out your ass, 212. It has nothing to do with her race. She's just common.

Hard to believe that in 2020, there's some snobby old racist bitch on a gossip board using the word 'common' as a slur. Meghan went to a private school and an excellent university. She has exactly the same education and background as your beloved Doors to Manual. Only difference is that she earned her own living until she was 35, unlike the parasite Middleton who spent her 20s as William's whore and housekeeper.

It's about speech, presentation and mannerisms, among other things. r214 you have no idea what you're talking about. Just quit.

'It's about speech, presentation and mannerisms'

Oh, so anybody who doesn't speak with a middle class English accent is 'common', are they, in your tiny dated, racist world? I'd like to see meek Kate making a speech to the UN and getting a standing ovation. That milksop has appalling diction, and a very limited vocabulary. Her 'manners' are those of a chav, flashing her bare buttocks in a thong to the assembled dignitaries and military. Quite the little commoner.

r216 watching ten seconds of Meghan being interviewed shows she's common and has no grace or poise. And now you're just trolling so take your anger somewhere else.

Trashy Kate has given an interview to The People.

Kate talking about the 'kiddies' is the definition of common. Her mother was a spazzy air hostess and retarded Kate was incapable of holding down any kind of job.

It has occurred to me in watching the famous “I wrote a letter protesting a dish soap commercial” footage that child Meghan seems a little... slow.

She speaks slowly, unclearly, and doesn’t seem too sure about what she’s trying to say. At that age, I would have considered her “dopey.”

This same general .... slowness seems evident in her handling of the press since her marriage.

Meghan NEVER got a standing ovation at the UN. She lied when she said that. She got polite applause. She also plagiarized Eleanor Roosevelt for her speech. No wonder her chest completely broke out in a rash during her speech. She was lying by omitting it was a class project, and she was plagiarizing. Her body revolted.

R202, I was using those as EXAMPLES of a project. Seriously, WTF???

R209 - "Asians" is used across the Board in Britain for those of South Asian deviation, which means, usually, people of Pakistani origin, as they represent the largest Muslim group in Britain.

It is often confusing to Americans, because it is basically a short-hand for "South Asian".

The grooming gang issue has been a boil on the arse of British identity politics for years, now. The "Woke Warriors" abusing Laurence Fox's family now are, oddly, nowhere ever to be found addressing the grooming gangs of "Asian" men uncovered throughout Britain in the last decade, and who have wrought far more damage to actual people's lives (that is to say, white working-class girls' lives) than Laurence Fox's unwise comments.

But that's the way identity politics works, and why embracing multiculturalism, rather than assimilation, has been so destructive.

R223, Thank you for clarifying that, since I find myself confused trying to understand the topic because of the differences in terminology between the UK and the US.

Has there been a BRF thread purge?

Grooming Gang? Are those gay Asian boys who attack women with bad extensions and ill-fitting clothing?

R225, yes.