Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
The couple are duke and duchess at Her Majesty's pleasure. She can give the duchy to someone else, at which time the couple are no longer "Sussex". I would suggest that Her Majesty still has quite a bit of power over the two unless they plan to simply live quietly on their existing investments.


I can register a company as Sussex Royal Inc as well, assuming it's not already taken. I'm not the Duke of Sussex or a prince though, so I would have difficulty getting people to part with their cash for the privilege of wearing my designer label.

The point of the "Sussex Royal" brand is to give an aura of glamour to whatever fashion items they chose to apply their label to. If they are allowed to rebrand as "Sussex Fashion" or "Sussex Styles" or something like that, then the glamour is still there. If they no longer end up as a real duke and duchess with an unspoken direct link to the top though, then what is the "brand value" they offer?

I can't say that I will be overly surprised if it is indeed true that they won't be allowed to use the "Royal" label for commercial purposes.
Harry will always be Royal as he’s a blood Prince. Even if their Sussex titles were removed, he’d still be Royal.

My point is, how can they be stopped? If they choose to ignore the Queen’s direction, how would that be enforced? In a US Court? I can’t see there’s any way the Queen can stop H&M from calling their business Sussex Royal. If they do, they’ll obviously cause more friction within the family.

I think he could put two fingers up to granny and just do it.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Harry will always be Royal as he’s a blood Prince. Even if their Sussex titles were removed, he’d still be Royal.

My point is, how can they be stopped? If they choose to ignore the Queen’s direction, how would that be enforced? In a US Court? I can’t see there’s any way the Queen can stop H&M from calling their business Sussex Royal. If they do, they’ll obviously cause more friction within the family.

I think he could put two fingers up to granny and just do it.
H&M?

Cheap clothes, then?
 
I wonder how enforceable the Queen's ruling on Harry not using the Sussex Royal in the USA is? I can't see how she could stop them registering a company as Sussex Royal Inc and trading on that. Of course, it would widen the breach, but what have they got to lose?

If she bins him, Charles will welcome him back with open arms. That's what fathers do, however black the sheep they sire.
The only flaw in the plan is the 'father' bit.
 
I wonder how enforceable the Queen's ruling on Harry not using the Sussex Royal in the USA is? I can't see how she could stop them registering a company as Sussex Royal Inc and trading on that. Of course, it would widen the breach, but what have they got to lose?

If she bins him, Charles will welcome him back with open arms. That's what fathers do, however black the sheep they sire.
Hmmm
 
Plus that William will have a big say – and I think he has made it pretty clear where he stands
He's told you his plans for the future has he? It's incredible how many people on this thread have a hotline to various royals.
Or they are just spouting bollocks.
 
Harry will always be Royal as he’s a blood Prince. Even if their Sussex titles were removed, he’d still be Royal.

My point is, how can they be stopped? If they choose to ignore the Queen’s direction, how would that be enforced? In a US Court? I can’t see there’s any way the Queen can stop H&M from calling their business Sussex Royal. If they do, they’ll obviously cause more friction within the family.

I think he could put two fingers up to granny and just do it.
As I said previously, I could call my own business "Sussex Royal", and there's not much the Queen could do about it either.

Have a look again at their brand name. It's "Sussex Royal". If they are no longer Sussex, then what is the value in that brand registration? They could call themselves Emperor and Empress of Vancouver Island, but would people pay a premium for clothes branded under that name?

At this point however, it's just speculation and rumour until it's been confirmed by a reputable source. Everybody so far is just saying they read a rumour in the Daily Mail.

 
Plus that William will have a big say – and I think he has made it pretty clear where he stands
I think William knows his brother well enough and understands how their paths will separate over the next decade or so. The reality is that Harry is not part of the inner circle of monarch and direct heirs and never will be now. William has his heir and two spares.

Personally I’d rather see Harry plough his own furrow than become another Andrew.
 

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
Harry, might have wanted less of a Royal role, but The Queen is playing it well & being tough.
He wants out of the firm, but not on his terms it seems, trading on his name will back fire.
Firms will go for it but how the public see him & the USA media hungry wife will alienate them from the UK.

Already talks of multi million $$ talk shows & Business talks earning loads.
But if the "Royal" word is used expect The Firm to get tougher on Harry.

To be honest I would have thought if asked he could have got Governor General of Canada, or USA Special Envoy, now Andrew is screwed, all this money making by Harry n Megan nearly makes Andrew semi normal for a pedo*


Note* Allegedly as no charges in a court of law, yet has been bought against him.
 
When you need common sense you ask on here first

I only trust a few,

It does amaze me as to what folks talk about with no real backup, the red tops have a lot to answer for,

Everyone knows the royalty are lizards, G'd himself told me . The hallowed David Icke
 
Harry, might have wanted less of a Royal role, but The Queen is playing it well & being tough.
He wants out of the firm, but not on his terms it seems, trading on his name will back fire.
Firms will go for it but how the public see him & the USA media hungry wife will alienate them from the UK.

Already talks of multi million $$ talk shows & Business talks earning loads.
But if the "Royal" word is used expect The Firm to get tougher on Harry.

To be honest I would have thought if asked he could have got Governor General of Canada, or USA Special Envoy, now Andrew is screwed, all this money making by Harry n Megan nearly makes Andrew semi normal for a pedo*


Note* Allegedly as no charges in a court of law, yet has been bought against him.
I think you’ll find that the Governor General of Canada has to be a Canadian citizen.
 
Very interesting. The name "Sussex Royal" used as part of a commercial enterprise could be problematic from a legal perspective in the UK. It can be done, but you need permission in order to ensure you are not implying any connection with the Royal Family.
Using the word ‘Royal’ in a company name

The use of the word ‘Royal’ is prohibited, as is the use of the following associated words: King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess, His/Her Majesty, and Windsor. The inclusion of such words could mislead the public by falsely suggesting an association with the Royal family. This could unfairly boost the image and status of a business.
More significantly in the case of these two, given their current location, there is a similar rule in Canada that I was not aware of until now.
Name cannot Suggest Connection with the Crown
The Act provides that a corporation shall not be given a name that suggests or implies connection with the Crown or the Royal Family.
The consent of the Secretary of State, Canada, has to be obtained by the applicant where the word "Royal" is used as a prefix in a corporate name and where is suggests Royal Patronage. The onus is on he applicant to obtain such consent.

Example A: Corporation names that suggest Royal Patronage and need the consent of the Secretary of State, Canada:
- The Royal Agricultural Winter Fair
- The Royal Canadian Yacht Club
- The Prince Charles Youth Foundation
 

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
I think you’ll find that the Governor General of Canada has to be a Canadian citizen.
Oh well the Queens Representative of St Helena & Accession Islands would have given them the peace they wanted. But me thinks Megan wants to earn $$ & the USA and Canada so Jamestown lost out.
 
As I said previously, I could call my own business "Sussex Royal", and there's not much the Queen could do about it either.
I believe there are certain words/phrases that are prohibited as company names and trademarks. Usually to avoid them being passed off as official. E.g. You can't make sanitary ware and call the brand 'British Standard', so you might want to call it 'Ideal Standard' instead, as opposed to in the States where they have bogs called 'American Standard' as they're not so picky about this.

eta - @terminal put it far more eloquently than I
 
I think you’ll find that the Governor General of Canada has to be a Canadian citizen.
Can you cite a reference for that?

The last British GG was Viscount Alexander, from 1946 to 1952. All of the subsequent ones were Canadian citizens, although some were immigrants. This has been the recent practice, but I'm not aware of any legal requirement for it.
 
As I said previously, I could call my own business "Sussex Royal", and there's not much the Queen could do about it either.

Have a look again at their brand name. It's "Sussex Royal". If they are no longer Sussex, then what is the value in that brand registration? They could call themselves Emperor and Empress of Vancouver Island, but would people pay a premium for clothes branded under that name?

At this point however, it's just speculation and rumour until it's been confirmed by a reputable source. Everybody so far is just saying they read a rumour in the Daily Mail.

Emperor Mong would be an appropriate name for their merchandising tat
 
Can you cite a reference for that?

The last British GG was Viscount Alexander, from 1946 to 1952. All of the subsequent ones were Canadian citizens, although some were immigrants. This has been the recent practice, but I'm not aware of any legal requirement for it.
To be honest I can’t, which is why I used the phrase “I think you’ll find”. I think I read it in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which drew a comparison with the Australian situation. Our constitution is explicit; the HH has to be an Australian.

Edited to add, the article suggested it’s in the Constitution Act 1982. I’ve no idea if that is true.
 
Last edited:

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top