The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Denville said:
well for people who are not upset, they've been making a hell of a fuss
Click to expand...

They are, but that fuss has helped raise their profile and shape their narrative in the US, and I think that’s the main reason they appear to be upset. I think some of their behaviour has been motivated by genuinely wanting to stick it to the RF, especially Charles, but I’ve come to believe a big part of what we’re seeing is manufactured outrage. Their selling point as American celebrities is their unusual life story; it’s the only thing they’ve got that they can potentially monetize to finance the particular kind of lifestyle they seem to crave. So they’ve got to make it as dramatic as possible and hit every hot button issue they can because that’s what will give them the most attention and money.

They’re telling the sort of story that will be their best shot at cracking the American market. Irritating Harry’s father is likely a bonus. If those pieces were taken away, would they still be upset about the title? I don’t think they would.
 
Denville said:
They wont be allowed to. They are not allowed to use their HRH's in business, so they could not do so iwht Archie... or Lily
Click to expand...

Just curious, was Princess Michael able to use her HRH in a book she wrote and she got royalties because she worked part time as a royal (at the time)? She did use the HRH in what amounted to earning money outside the royal work. would any royal who decided to work outside the Firm and not do royal work be obligated not to use the HRH in the said other work environment?
 
Sandy345 said:
Just curious, was Princess Michael able to use her HRH in a book she wrote and she got royalties because she worked part time as a royal (at the time)? She did use the HRH in what amounted to earning money outside the royal work. would any royal who decided to work outside the Firm and not do royal work be obligated not to use the HRH in the said other work environment?
Click to expand...

As far as I know she never worked part time as a royal.

camelot23ca said:
They are, but that fuss has helped raise their profile and shape their narrative in the US, and I think that’s the main reason they appear to be upset. I think some of their behaviour has been motivated by genuinely wanting to stick it to the RF, especially Charles, but I’ve come to believe a big part of what we’re seeing is manufactured outrage. Their selling point as American celebrities is their unusual life story; it’s the only thing they’ve got that they can potentially monetize to finance the particular kind of lifestyle they seem to crave. So they’ve got to make it as dramatic as possible and hit every hot button issue they can because that’s what will give them the most attention and money.

They’re telling the sort of story that will be their best shot at cracking the American market. Irritating Harry’s father is likely a bonus. If those pieces were taken away, would they still be upset about the title? I don’t think they would.
Click to expand...
I think its all 3, Partly manufactured outrage because they know it looks bad to the American public that Archie didn't get HRH and that it was due to his racial origins... etc Partly I think a genuine attachment to the titles because they are part of the only identity Harry knows..and partly yes I think they boht have anger against the RF, particularly Charles, probably because Charles would not support Harry financially.. and they're using this story that "Charles doesn't want to give Archie HRH because of his racial background" to "stick it to Charles".
The "racist remark" they were careful to say that it wasn't the queen or Philp, so that kind of makes it more likely it was Charles or William...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
camelot23ca said:
They are, but that fuss has helped raise their profile and shape their narrative in the US, and I think that’s the main reason they appear to be upset. I think some of their behaviour has been motivated by genuinely wanting to stick it to the RF, especially Charles, but I’ve come to believe a big part of what we’re seeing is manufactured outrage. Their selling point as American celebrities is their unusual life story; it’s the only thing they’ve got that they can potentially monetize to finance the particular kind of lifestyle they seem to crave. So they’ve got to make it as dramatic as possible and hit every hot button issue they can because that’s what will give them the most attention and money.



They’re telling the sort of story that will be their best shot at cracking the American market. Irritating Harry’s father is likely a bonus. If those pieces were taken away, would they still be upset about the title? I don’t think they would.
Click to expand...


I think some of their complaints could be seen in that light. Possibly.

I do think (going back to the HIHO plan), they really did want to monetize the HRH, keep Sussexroyal, etc. Their website made it pretty clear IMO how deeply unhappy they were about that refusal. That absolutely mattered to them IMO. There weren’t many Americans actually reading their website and responses. That website was them expressing what they did and did not want.

I also think if they really didn’t care at all, if it was something of no interest at all, they wouldn’t be using their titles. They don’t have to. People would know who they are anyway. But they do. They’ve complained left, right and sideways about the institution, the family….but they do use their titles at every opportunity, which they have because of their royal ties. They seem to matter. Be it selling books, announcing Lili’s birth, putting a name on a birth certificate, etc.

I don’t particularly understand how, in a country that doesn’t recognize titles, putting The Duke of Sussex as a first name is legal on an American birth certificate, but bottom line- that was the choice they made, when Henry was obviously appropriate. Along with his 3 middle names that were left out in the middle name section.

Last name I get is more dicey, but Mountbatten-Windsor has been used by William and Catherine, among others, so it seems like a reasonable option to me. So, apparently they cared enough to put titles and styles on Lili’s birth certificate. Among other examples. That’s just the most recent.

So- I do think it genuinely matters to them- though some of their complaints could be seen as a publicity stunt. Maybe.
 
Erin9 said:
I think some of their complaints could be seen in that light. Possibly.

I do think (going back to the HIHO plan), they really did want to monetize the HRH, keep Sussexroyal, etc. Their website made it pretty clear IMO how deeply unhappy they were about that refusal. That absolutely mattered to them IMO. There weren’t many Americans actually reading their website and responses. That website was them expressing what they did and did not want.

I also think if they really didn’t care at all, if it was something of no interest at all, they wouldn’t be using their titles. They don’t have to. People would know who they are anyway. But they do. They’ve complained left, right and sideways about the institution, the family….but they do use their titles at every opportunity, which they have because of their royal ties. They seem to matter. Be it selling books, announcing Lili’s birth, putting a name on a birth certificate, etc.

I don’t particularly understand how, in a country that doesn’t recognize titles, putting The Duke of Sussex as a first name is legal on an American birth certificate, but bottom line- that was the choice they made, when Henry was obviously appropriate. Along with his 3 middle names that were left out in the middle name section.

Last name I get is more dicey, but Mountbatten-Windsor has been used by William and Catherine, among others, so it seems like a reasonable option to me. So, apparently they cared enough to put titles and styles on Lili’s birth certificate. Among other examples. That’s just the most recent.

So- I do think it genuinely matters to them- though some of their complaints could be seen as a publicity stunt. Maybe.
Click to expand...

But as far as I know the idea was that "Mountbatten Windsor" could be used by Phil's descendants when they needed to use a surname... so William used it in their law case in France which is a republic. So you'd think that Harry would do the same, say "I'm living in a republic, I need to use a surname like other people do and the US does not recognize titles..."
 
Sandy345 said:
Just curious, was Princess Michael able to use her HRH in a book she wrote and she got royalties because she worked part time as a royal (at the time)? She did use the HRH in what amounted to earning money outside the royal work. would any royal who decided to work outside the Firm and not do royal work be obligated not to use the HRH in the said other work environment?
Click to expand...

She has never been an official representative of monarchy and the British government on a part time basis, nor has her husband though he has represented his cousin on the occasional visit to a Commonwealth
realm. She is simply a member of the family who uses a courtesy title. As far as I know, neither of the Prince Michael Kent's have ever received taxpayer funded security either and have to pay rent for their KP residence.
 
Last edited:
TLLK said:
She has never been an official representative of monarchy and the British government on a part time basis, nor has her husband though he has represented his cousin on the occasional visit to a Commonwealth
realm.. She is simply a member of the family who uses a courtesy title. As far as I know, neither of the Prince Michael Kent's have ever received taxpayer funded security either.
Click to expand...

I think the reason that H and Meghan have been forbidden to use HRH in business is partly because of their wishing to be Half in and half out, which was not permitted as we know, and also because of the scale of their business. Edward and Sophie did experiment with "half in and half out" ie mostly business but doing some duties on behalf of the queen but there were too many problems with it, and the queen probably felt that it was not a good idea to allow it ever again.. And clealry Meg and Harry were very annoyed that they had been told "no" on this issue so it was made very clear to them that there would be no use of HRH in their business dealings..
And I think that Ed and Sophie's businesses were relatively small, compared with the large scale commercial undertaking that Harry and Meg wanted to have, so agian, any use of HRH was forbidden....
 
I think it really depends and it is a grey area sometimes. The Sussexes were/are planning on making a career and brand out of trading on their royal titles AND having been senior royals with a HIHO option. I think everyone was worried about HRH branded clothing and Sussex Royal making donations to political campaigns. And also "This official royal tour is being sponsored by XYZ and filmed exclusively for Netflix". And the massive headaches that would cause.

I do think proximity to the throne matters as well. Princess Michael who receives no money from the sovereign grant or taxpayer and who's husband was only recently restored to the LOS writing historical novels for profit whilst using her title doesn't really make much difference but a senior royal using their title for profit whilst working for the firm and getting all the perks raises more eyebrows. But doing a cookbook or other book for charity is fine and even PC has done it.

Peter Philips was told off for explicitly stating his royal connections in an advert but Zara is able to be a brand ambassador for Landrover as long as she doesn't have "The Queen's granddaughter only uses..." anywhere. It can be a difficult and fudged line sometimes. But they don't solely rely on their family's name/titles to make money.

ETA. Yes I think Sophie and Edward having businesses in the media and PR showed the pitfalls of that type of work and royal life for HM very clearly. And all the other cash for access scandals over the years.
 
Heavs said:
I think it really depends and it is a grey area sometimes. The Sussexes were/are planning on making a career and brand out of trading on their royal titles AND having been senior royals with a HIHO option. I think everyone was worried about HRH branded clothing and Sussex Royal making donations to political campaigns. And also "This official royal tour is being sponsored by XYZ and filmed exclusively for Netflix". And the massive headaches that would cause.

I do think proximity to the throne matters as well. Princess Michael who receives no money from the sovereign grant or taxpayer and who's husband was only recently restored to the LOS writing historical novels for profit whilst using her title doesn't really make much difference but a senior royal using their title for profit whilst working for the firm and getting all the perks raises more eyebrows. But doing a cookbook or other book for charity is fine and even PC has done it.

Peter Philips was told off for explicitly stating his royal connections in an advert but Zara is able to be a brand ambassador for Landrover as long as she doesn't have "The Queen's granddaughter only uses..." anywhere. It can be a difficult and fudged line sometimes. But they don't solely rely on their family's name/titles to make money.

ETA. Yes I think Sophie and Edward having businesses in the media and PR showed the pitfalls of that type of work and royal life for HM very clearly. And all the other cash for access scandals over the years.
Click to expand...
It is a bit of a grey area, yes, but most of hte royals mentioned didn't ever work for the Firm.. and got no public money. And even if someone doesn't have HRH, its hard to draw a line saying "Zara is the queen's granddaughter but that isn't influencing us in giving her a job". Of course her connections help but she's not working for the firm, and she never was... and she did not ask to be Half in and half out.
I think the queen feared that teh Sussexes would be trying to make money on a large scale.. Its one thing to make a modest profit from books but another to make a massive profit from Netflix.
 
You can argue that Zara gets her endorsements because she's a famous sportswoman. She was Sports Personality of the Year, to be fair. OK, if she wasn't the Queen's granddaughter, she wouldn't attract nearly as much interest, but she never actually refers to herself as "the Queen's granddaughter". Peter was out of order because his milk adverts referred to him being a member of the Royal Family.
 
Sunnystar said:
Depends on who you ask. Archie from the comic strip is pretty famous in certain quarters and with a lot of Gen Zers & Millennials, and I'd guess known enough to a fair # of Gen Xers even. But ask most Gen Xers and Baby Boomers or Silent Gen and they'd say "Archie Bunker." YMMV.
Click to expand...

I'm a Boomer, and I grew up with (and loved) Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead. Also, Batman, Superman and the rest of the older Comics.
 
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June 2021-

TLLK said:
Glad to see that he was able to meet with one of his UK patronages during his time in London.
Click to expand...



That is nice that the timing worked out.
 
Alison H said:
You can argue that Zara gets her endorsements because she's a famous sportswoman. She was Sports Personality of the Year, to be fair. OK, if she wasn't the Queen's granddaughter, she wouldn't attract nearly as much interest, but she never actually refers to herself as "the Queen's granddaughter". Peter was out of order because his milk adverts referred to him being a member of the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

Think the one time I really realised that Zara is a granddaughter (i watch a lot of sports, so know here more from there), was when a few years ago the olympic medalists met the Queen, and while they were waiting in line, Zara taught some of the others how to curtsey...
Then it dawned on me that she grew up in (probably) one of the few families where you'll actually learn how to curtsey early on ?
 
Erin9 said:
That is nice that the timing worked out.
Click to expand...

Actually the WellChild awards are often held in Sept/Oct, so this was specially arranged/timed for Summer instead.

It's lovely though, esp as the WellChild awards couldn't happen last year.

I take it this means Harry won't be returning to UK in September.
 
I moved my replies to some comments posted in this thread regarding British royal titles to Questions about British Styles and Titles.

Denville said:
I dont recollect any press release at the time of Anne's wedding. Can you quote please? Mark didn't want a title, whihc meant that Anne's children were not going to have a title....
Click to expand...

Sandy345 said:
As I recall, it was made clear before the wedding that no title would be given to Mark. Mark and Anne did not want their children to have titles. I believe it was in the newspapers I don't recall how it was released to the media. Maybe just from the couple?
Click to expand...

Osipi said:
I just remember that Mark Phillips declined the offer of a title and then his children would not be titled.
Click to expand...

Alison H said:
I've always had the impression that it was Anne and Mark's personal choice, and that the Queen was quite ready to grant Mark a title, as was done for Tony Armstrong-Jones, if that was what he and Anne wanted.
Click to expand...


It was reported in the press that the couple were offered peerage titles for themselves and their children. There is no suggestion that HRH Prince(ss) titles were ever on offer to Princess Anne's husband or children. There does not appear to have been a formal press release regarding their titles or the lack thereof.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/16/...irth-to-boy-fifth-in-line-to-the-british.html

In a departure from tradition, the child will not be given a title. [...] No reason was given but it was speculated that the young parents, both of whom are known as freewheeling and independent, did not want peerages for themselves or their children.​


https://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/15/newsid_2539000/2539937.stm

Both the princess and her husband are said to have rejected an offer from the Queen of titles which would have enabled their children to be born into the peerage.​



Denville said:
He is not allowed to use it in business dealings.. but I think he can use it if he wishes in social settings. However, it seems an odd thing to do living in a republic to insist on one's "Royal highness" when he can use his name and surname.
Click to expand...

Heavs said:
They both agreed not to use HRH for their commercial/political ventures in the US and anywhere else but they still have them legally speaking in the UK.
Click to expand...

The family agreement regarding titles announced in January 2020 read simply "The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family", although it indeed appears that in practice, the Queen doesn't disapprove of usage of HRH so long as it remains outside of commercial/political ventures.

https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0
 
I thought that they had simply agreed not to use it in business dealings.. that statement appears to say that they are agreeing not to use them at all....
 
A-Bik said:
Actually the WellChild awards are often held in Sept/Oct, so this was specially arranged/timed for Summer instead.



It's lovely though, esp as the WellChild awards couldn't happen last year.



I take it this means Harry won't be returning to UK in September.
Click to expand...



Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

It’s nice that the awards happened this year, and they could alter the timing.

That seems likely.
 
rmm084 said:
I'm a Boomer, and I grew up with (and loved) Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead. Also, Batman, Superman and the rest of the older Comics.
Click to expand...


Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead have been reintroduced to a younger public so to speak because of the CW's Riverdale TV series, even though it is radically different from the old Archie Comics.


WarnerMedia BTW owns Archie Comics, as it also owns DC Comics (including Batman and Superman).
 
rmm084 said:
I'm a Boomer, and I grew up with (and loved) Archie, Betty, Veronica, and Jughead. Also, Batman, Superman and the rest of the older Comics.
Click to expand...
I’m a boomer and remember reading Archie comics - they were great! I remember Archie bunker , the Jeffersons, but I don’t remember Married with Children at all. Maybe because it was on Fox? IDK
 
WellChild is one of Harry?s most dearly loved charities. It?s great that he was able to reunite again with these parents, several of whom he knows personally, and very ill children. It looked like it was terrific weather so a garden party was ideal. Good to see Ed Sheeran there as well!


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -
34 35 36
Replies
1K
Views
116K
Hallo girl
H
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia's Current Events 5: June 2024 -
Replies
18
Views
3K
Toledo
Toledo
Somebody
Family of the late Infanta Pilar, The Gomez Acebo Family, General News: June 2024 -
Replies
1
Views
3K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Somebody
Infanta Margrita and The Zurita Family General News: June 2024 -
Replies
1
Views
869
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Notification - Additional Rules for the Wales Forum
Replies
0
Views
535
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom