Royal sentences to ponder

Meghan and Harry insist Queen Elizabeth doesn’t own the word ‘royal’

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle laid bare their hostility with Buckingham Palace — by insisting that neither Queen Elizabeth nor the UK Government owns the word “royal” internationally.

Hours after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex confirmed on Friday they would not go ahead with their planned “Sussex Royal” brand after The Queen put a stop to it, they posted an extraordinary statement on their website insisting they still had the right to the word “royal.”

The statement reads: “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.”

Here is the full story, via Ted Gioia.

Comments

Meghan is really pushing it isnt she....

They also do not have a monopoly on divorce, but you know.

I predict divorce and Prince Harry goes back begging to be let back into the family.

Again, he's got four adult maternal-side cousins who are not collecting subsidies from the Civil List. They get along.

Correction: paternal-side cousins. He has quite a mess of maternal-side cousins as well.

Of course the Queen of England does not own the word royal outside of the realm she rules.

So what? This is just a royal screw up on several levels anyways.

They way their statement is worded, it's obvious that they went so far as to consult an attorney, before stepping back from the edge of the cliff. So relations do seem to have become a little testy. They were probably told by their legal advisor that they might have to use a different brand in the UK, and that seemed too messy. But I think they are sending a message to the Queen that, O.K., this time you win, but don't push it.

"O.K., this time you win, but don't push it"

More like "O.K., this time you win, but we still hate you and will do whatever we can to hurt you"

The Queen is the Queen. The ruler. The sovereign. The crown. In a fight about the use of any royal or noble title of any part of the UK, Me-Again’s position, whether or not Me-Again actually understands it, is in fact the following:

“OK, this time you win. And you’ll win next time. And the next time after that. And forever. But I will stamp my foot and behave like a sharp elbowed gold digger.”

Can the Queen still issue letters of marque?

Megan Marquel?

Typical gold-digger...cutting ties with the family money so they can earn money themselves. Disgusting...

Cutting ties with the family money so they can earn money themselves...

...based solely on the family of which they used to be a part.

The money comes from people that want to pay not forced to pay.

She isn't Queen of England. Moreover she doesn't rule, she reigns. You might as well get the jargon right.

Why bother to even care about the jargon? This is low rent entertainment at best.

Though since you seem to care, would the formulation "wherever her writ runs' pass proper muster? Or would that simply make it too clear just how little actual power she has to forbid anyone who is not her subject of one of her realms from calling themselves the Royal Queen of England?

It isn't entertainment at all. It's just a news story about a public figure, and, it's a reasonable wager, a misreported one.

Wait, if it isn't low brow entertainment, it is actually fake news, which is much more respectable.

If she’s not Queen of England, who is? Maybe you’ve got inside knowledge of Me-Again’s cunning plan?

He is just being pedantic. She is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

She is also Queen of Canada and a few other countries. Why Canada got saddled with these two grifters is unfair AND then to have to provide security costs for multi millionaires is sorely testing most Canadians support for the Crown.

What is their grift, exactly?

While we're at it, what security costs? At the end of her life, his mother had one bodyguard, who was employed not by the palace but by the Ritz-Carlton. One of the Queen's other grandchildren got married some years ago. His bride related that it was some time after they met that he spilled the beans about who his grandmother was; she had no clue; the Queen's grandson is not assigned a security detail as a matter of course.

A conservative estimate is that it will cost upwards of 6 million dollars to provide them with security - 6 million would go a long, long way to support many real noon-profits in the work they are doing. They are multimillionaires - whenever someone with money decides they are entitled to other people's money they are grifters.

Diana could have had royal protection officers but she declined because she thought they would spy on her so she put her live in the hands of the idiot playboy son of Al Fayad - that ended well. No one wants to see the same thing happen to her son which is why they are being provided with RCMP security when in Canada. Fine, but my beef is that they can afford it themselves or the British Crown should be footing the bill - NOT Canadians. In spite of their insistence that they want to lead private lives they sure are putting themselves out there which of course will attract the nut jobs. Many of the other minor royals get by with minimal security - why Harry and Meghan? Because they have made it an issue and because they know they will not have to pay for it - in a word - grifters

A conservative estimate is that it will cost upwards of 6 million dollars to provide them with security -

An estimate pulled out of whose rear end, little girl?

The Queen's niece shleps around without any security. Harry's cousin Peter shelps around without any security. The palace did not provide security for Diana in 1997.

And quit whining. It's unattractive.

"She isn't Queen of England. "

This is common US usage. Most Americans use England for the UK.

We don't care if its not correct. Sorry old chap.

You mean "realms", plural. H & M are staying on Vancouver Island right now, and grandma is Queen of Canada among her many other titles.

Canada or Australia are fascinating in this regard. That the Queen is formally the sovereign is a historical relic, though the fact that the governor general she appoints actually does have authority is true, and not merely an echo of the past. However, though Elizabeth is their sovereign, neither Canada nor Australia grant patents of nobility to anyone, making her absolute power over the royal family moot in Canada or Australia.

It may be a historical relic, but Canada's constitution makes it virtually impossible to abolish the monarchy, unlike Australia, where all it would take is a referendum.

Even if you achieved the required total unanimity regarding the monarchy itself, any proposed constitutional reform would be hijacked by Quebec, indigenous peoples, and your Uncle Bob, all insisting on a package deal that also addresses their issues simultaneously.

I'll add: shrugging off the monarchy would be thoroughly un-Canadian. They are Loyalists through and through. It's the one part of their national identity that Pierre Trudeau didn't manufacture.

Can't really agree with that assessment. Once upon a time. But in today's world there's only a small number of devoted monarchists, and for most of them, just benign indifference.

PATENTS. I'm not surprised nobody mentioned patents! The Queen would be much more innovative if she just got some patents.

Fake Ray, you seem a bit confused. The Queen does not have patents, she hands them out.

Patents of nobility are Royal Letters Patent ennobling or raising individuals to the peerage (the ascending order of the English nobility being baron, viscount, earl, marquess, and duke).

The silly thing about being King, or Queen in this case, is you get to make up the rules as you go along. I'm a traditionalist in many aspects but I'll never understand such antiquated institutions like the monarchy.

All sovereigns, whether parliaments or monarchs, get to make up the rules as they go along. It's good to be the sovereign.

The British monarchy is silly not because it's sovereign but because it's not. If the Queen were an actual sovereign, she wouldn't seem silly at all. She'd be Britain incarnate and you'd believe it.

At this point though it's all just for the tourists and People Magazine. Also, as a conservative Brit told me, if they dissolve the monarchy then they'll have to write a constitution and it would be an absolute s***show, with every extruded "right" any kook could possibly dream up written into it.

British royal titles are courtesy titles outside of the United Kingdom Such as in Canada but have no status outside of the Commonwealth nations

it's not like British royalty came without complicated costs. For instance, today, there is IRA and the French Loyalists swarming on the Euro front. The Dutch rivaled the British Empire at its forerunning.

This here is the real cost to Brexit.

Nah, the French will continue farting at British royalty regardless of whether the UK escapes EU vassalage or not.

Campy royals with fake campy drama. I can't think of a more useless topic than this tabloid level fodder. A link to Page Six of all things. I thought this was an economics blog.

First there was reality TV. This is reality economics.

Sob stories from princesses and millionaires’ manufactured grievances are positional goods.

Dumb rich princes dumb enough to entangle themselves with weapons-grade gold diggers are scarce, and have zero elasticity (especially in respect to their grandmother’s feelings).

And the marginal utility of adding “Royal, as in real, British, House of Windsor (formerly known as Saxe-Coburg-Gotha)” to the T Shirts, baseball caps and trailer-trash bait that one wants to sell is very high.

If Me-Again is so keen to leave the UK’s Royal Family, why is she having such a hissy fit? Why can’t she be just plain Mrs Windsor, or Mrs Anything, or Ms. Anything? After all, it’s not like she’s a third rate actress who was about to reach the end of her career and is too thick and has too few skills other than arbitraging royal connexions for trash-cash. All very mysterious.

It certainly is not a link to a nice sunny page 3 girl.

Royal Meat (kebaps) https://royal-meat.eu/
Royal Milk Tea (are they sending gunboats to Japan?) https://www.amazon.com/Sangaria-Royal-Milk-Fluid-Ounce/dp/B06X413FSP
Royal (maybe the gunboats are on the way to the Philippines) It's a soda trademarked the Coca Cola company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tru
Royal Queen Seeds, including the Union Jack on their logo (marijuana seed company based in Spain.....to the gunboats!) https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/

The Royal Gelatin and Pudding people are likely of the same opinion.

https://royaldesserts.com/products/

Too late for Royal typewriters, but I think that's the same company that makes Royal vacuums, not that I think it's likely the Queen has used a vacuum often.

https://www.amazon.com/Royal-Commercial-Lightweight-Upright-Widepath/dp/B003DNQ2C6

Haha, Ted Gioia isn't as excellent as me. But then again, nobody is. Except me.

They imply that Queen Elizabeth owns the word “royal” within her United Kingdom. It's news to me. I suspect she forbad its use as a disappointed and cross grandma not as a crowned Head of State. Naturally I'm open to correction.

I don’t know what the Queen of the UK was thinking. My understanding of how the UK constitution works is that no, she will not have done this in her personal capacity, and not as a grandmother. The decision will have been made by or in consultation with the bodies established by law to be responsible for the use of royal titles, including passing-off as royal. The principle that has been followed is exactly the same applied to Prince Andrew’s Pitch At Palace — neither royal titles themselves nor association with them can be used for personal private profit, neither for members of the royal family nor anyone else. Me-Again wanted to blur this dividing line, which could have been exceedingly lucrative. She’s been told that the law applies to her. And it is the law. There is no need to feel too sorry for her. She is clearly a capable woman who understands how to acquire and retain power. She is perfectly able to earn a fortune without trading directly on the British crown’s name. She will just have to work slightly harder or settle for slightly less. Good luck to her — provided she plays by the rules.

I suspect she forbad its use

Or, she didn't do anything at all and the newspapers are quoting other newspapers who are quoting a reporter and editor who made it up.

Harry has a close cousin who works as a museum curator and is married to a salesman. They don't receive any Civil List cash, though she's had a berth in a Crown Estate property. The economical interpretation of what they've done is that they'd prefer that kind of life (and a domestic life without a mess of employees) to working the charity circuit and having 15 people on staff to keep their schedule, do their bookkeeping, do their housework, and keep an eye on their kid.

The Queen does not own words, however there are de facto trademark issues: in Canada, it is not legal for an enterprise to call itself the Royal Café without permission from the government.

I don't think it is that simple.

I don’t think I’ve enjoyed the comments on MR so thoroughly. Nice work, fellas!

Especially after 2/3s were deleted.

That many Bloomberg ads?

It just isn't fair. What about the peccadilloes of other monarchies? Don't the American people, and the magazines that cluster about supermarket cash register aisles, care about the Danish, Spanish and Dutch nobility? The British version is so very boring. Meghan and Harry have actually done nothing interesting, unless capitalizing on the US obsession with the royal family is somehow a matter of importance. Will I get in trouble for selling Archie T-shirts?

"Don't the American people, and the magazines that cluster about supermarket cash register aisles, care about the Danish, Spanish and Dutch nobility?"

No, of course we don't care about the"Bicycle Monarchies". I bet only about 100 people in the US could name those three sovereigns.

England is the "Mother Country" and of course we [sorta] share a language.

Its ok, we don't care about anything else about Spain, Denmark or the Netherlands either.

The greatest portion of the British that originally settled in North America's "New England" were Puritans that escaped precisely because they abhorred the Anglican (shadow Catholic) monarchy after the Restoration. A persuasive case could be made that the American Revolution was in part a continuation of the War of the Three Kingdoms, a later chapter in the old story of the Puritan/Roundhead fanaticism. George III was himself a devout Anglican, too degenerate for Puritan sensibilities.

Keep in mind that the one book present in practically all seventeenth and eighteenth century colonial households, in addition to a bible, was Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, a book that has never been out of print since first published in 1678.

Yankees show a real ignorance of their own history by even noticing the silly doings of an institution their ancestors reviled.

Tyler is trolling us, and as an American I properly don't care.

Harry in haste,
Resent at leisure.

The Queen can pry my vintage Royal Typewriter™ from my cold, avocado-toast-smeared fingers.

Never mind typewriters. We eat Jersey Royal potatoes every spring. Lovely things. Nobody asked Queen Victoria if they could use the name. Yet she was the sovereign lady of Jersey at the time of their introduction.

I suspect this stuff about using "royal" is a fantasy.

This is where the Queen and most Americans can find common ground: Meghan and Harry are a royal PIA.

Mmm... Royal IPA...

The difference between selling Jersey Royal potatoes and what H & M proposed is that I suspect Jersey Royal potatoes make NO claims that the potatoes have anything to do with the Crown. H & M wanted to make the connection explicit and use it to gain money. Beatrice and Eugenie don't use their royal titles to promote themselves to gain money. I'm sure that their employees choose them over some person from the east end of London because they are connected (just like every celeb's kids gets more opportunities that the guy from Stockton CA). But neither B or E are pushing their titles in the public forum to gain additional money.

H & M have lost the plot - they are already rich beyond what most people can imagine (close to 30 million pounds) - no one really knows what their 'causes' are ( I suspect whatever pays them the most). Harry has a bit of a track record with conservation in Africa but seems to have strayed from that. Who knows with Meghan - she is like most celebs bouncing from one cause to another - whatever will get her the most PR. Prince Charles has spent 40 years developing Duchy Organics, so that is the closest commercial enterprise that is comparable. His foundation, The Prince's Trust, is a huge success, but largely works in the background. I don't recall too many fundraising galas (of course it is doubtful I would be invited). The problem with most celeb foundations, is that they are largely just vehicles which allow celebs to swan around at galas and balls getting their pictures in magazines, but if you dig deep, there is very little money that actually goes to the cause. So you raise $500,000 from some gala, but $475,000 is expenses, staff costs, celeb costs and appearance fees - leaving a pitiful $25,000 for the cause. Both Harry and Meghan need to be a little more forthcoming on what they are planning - good lord they have been planning this exit for a long time. I have visited their website and aside from posting nice pictures of the couple, there is nothing of substance. I would have thought they would have had that all in place before they blindsided the Queen, Charles and William with their announcement.

You don't have their money, you don't have their looks, and you don't have the attention of anyone with money or looks. Just learn to live with it without going on 200 word whinges. Other people manage.

Proles aren't allowed to have opinions, no matter how brief

Real proles have concise opinions.

Art Deco has a weird British royal fascination?

...what

"The problem with most celeb foundations, is that they are largely just vehicles which allow celebs to swan around at galas and balls getting their pictures in magazines, but if you dig deep, there is very little money that actually goes to the cause. "

Yes, it's not just the Trump Foundation. Foundations started by athletes and other celebs (and let's not forget televangelists) may or may not begin with good intentions, but go off the rails pretty often.

Why would I ever donate to a Sussex Foundation? I'm having a rough time coming up with reasons.

Harry has a lot to answer for this mess. While I never took to Meghan, I can understand where she is coming from. As an actress that never rose very high in the pecking order and having grown up in the entertainment biz, it is second nature for her to squeeze any and all opportunities from what is in front of her. She was an actress getting past her prime and not hitting the big time - she did what most would do - she hooked a rich guy. Good for her. But she didn't truly understand the trade off. Harry should have - he was born royal and grew up royal. The tradeoff with royalty is that you get access to great wealth - homes, jewels, art work, ability to use your position for almost any cause (as Harry did when establishing the Invictus Games), but in return your duty is to cut ribbons, plant trees, listen to some mayor of tiny town England drone on about their new sports hall, all with a smile on your face. There was more than enough to indicate that Harry didn't want that - he should have been honest with everyone before he married, refused the title of Duke/Duchess, refused the multi million dollar wedding and renovations and announced that he and his wife would be addressed simply as Prince and Princess Henry of Wales, and would do limited engagements for the Queen, while living off the millions he inherited from his mother and the Queen Mum and the millions he would inherit when the Queen dies and then when his father dies. Harry would still have been able to use his position to support his causes, but I doubt Meghan would have been interested in that life because she is used to being the centre of attention. Which is the opposite of royal duty. When Princess Anne attends an event, the focus is on the event, NOT on her - her role is to highlight the work of the group who invited her. In all the events that Meghan attended, the spotlight turned on HER. Harry has always wanted to be married and have the life that William has and William as very fortunate to hook up with Catherine in his early 20s. So I feel sad for Harry, but he should have been honest from the start, instead of trying to please a wife that wanted to be the centre of attention (not going to happen the line up is the Queen, Charles/Camilla, Willliam/Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis, then Harry, along with Meghan) and then Archie) and try to manage his duty. I know it is old fashioned to think of duty in this way, but it is what it is.

This comments section is increasingly dominated by royals experts, but funnily enough, it's still all the same people posting comments.

What might look like expertise in this subject to a foreigner is often basic knowledge of every primary school child in countries of which the Queen is sovereign.

Do they teach you what "increasingly" means in primary schools over there?

Kansas City Royals ordered to fork over cash, draft picks and a player to be named later

As a Canadian I'm peeved to no end that Canadians are forking over millions for 'security' for these two foreigners, that have questionable status in our country. Meghan had a work permit when she was an actress in Suits, but that is long over (2 plus years), so her status in the country is that of a visitor and her visa should be up shortly. While the Queen (as sovereign) and Charles (as heir) have status, any other member of the Royal Family don't - they are just foreigners who should have permission to stay in the country longer than a few days. If they are here for any purpose, such as Sophie who is patron of the Toronto General Hospital, they need to be invited and approved by the government

Harry's connection to Canada is thin. He has declined every attempt over the past decade to take on Canadian patronages, head up Canadian charities, or accept appointments as colonel-in-chief of various Canadian military units including the Canadian Rangers. His website shows NO connection to any specific Canadian patronage, charity or organization. He does not speak French and has limited, if any, understanding of Canada. As a young boy he visited a couple of times with his parents. The reality is that Canada was an easy place to land and stick Canada with a huge bill for their security.

At least other members of the Royal Family have patronages in Canada; The Prince's Trust has a branch that has been operating in Canada over the last decade.

The more I hear about these two ungrateful gits, the angrier I get. Canada has many, many problems that we are dealing with - including blockades supported by foreign money (Tides and Soros) that is putting our economy at risk along with the same foreign money stopping our oil and gas developments which is putting hundreds of thousands of workers on the unemployment line. And yet the international and Canadian media think that Harry and Meghan need attention. Yuck.

Canada should do its own Brexit and leave the Commonwealth. Or else you need to get treatment for Royal Family derangement syndrome for which you exhibit strong early symptoms.

Actually I think the monarchy is great and the Queen has shown that duty is something to be held in high esteem, as do Charles, William and Catherine. The problem is Harry and Meghan who want things on their terms and only their terms. I feel so sad for two people - the Queen who has spent her life in service to her country and at 93 should be able to take a break without having to deal with these two idiots. And feel sorry for little Archie. The only contact that Meghan has with her family is her mother; a mother that after her divorce left and her father raised her. She has no contact with any other family members not even her mother's siblings. Archie will grow up with no contact with his cousins, aunts/uncles, or great grandmother or either of his grandfathers. In 20 years we will be hearing about how screwed up his life was.

The monarchy is an integral part of the Canadian system of government and acts as a balance (through the Governor General) to the government of the day which is all politics and given our current political leadership is a complete and utter mess.

"they are just foreigners who should have permission to stay in the country longer than a few days."

Yes, but Canada -- like the vast majority of countries in the world -- generally gives foreigners permission to stay 3-6 months in a single visit for tourism, business or social visit purposes. Of course, the final decision is up to the discretion of the immigration officer at the port of entry but I doubt anyone in the Canadian immigration bureaucracy thinks that Harry and Meghan are going to be stealing jobs from Canadians or violating the terms of their stay. Multi-millionaires usually don't have problems getting whatever visa is necessary to stay however long they want in a place. They can always start up a company or invest in an existing one and get permission to stay based around a business enterprise.

Which is why their time here is fast coming to an end - end of April will be 6 months.

The latest figures from the UK is that their security bill will likely top out at 20 million annually. That's a lot of cash for these two that apparently are so concerned about the fate of the world.

Comments for this post are closed