Poor darling or not, the undoubtedly faithful Harry has been backing his wife up to the hilt. Both of them know that they will sink or swim together, and they have been vigilant in protecting their ‘brand’. This was nowhere more apparent than in the lengthy statement they posted to ‘update’ their followers when they realised that their royal status had been dangerously called into question in the early days of their ‘stepping back’. Trying to shore up their prestige as a result of losing the right to use the style of royal highness, they stated that they ‘will retain their “HRH” prefix, thereby formally remaining known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will no longer actively use their HRH titles as they will no longer be working members of the family as of Spring 2020.’ They asserted that ‘(w)hile 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.’ They reminded their admirers that they ‘do not plan to start a “foundation”, but rather intend to develop a new way to effect change and complement the efforts made by so many excellent foundations globally.’ They complained that ‘the trademark applications that had been filed as protective measures and that reflected the same standard trademarking requests as done for The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, have been removed,’ and that ‘(w)hile there is precedent for other titled members of the Royal Family to seek employment outside of the institution, for The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a 12-month review has been put in place.’
To those in the know, Meghan and Harry had swung into action to protect their ‘brand’. There was no doubt who had drafted the statement. ‘Iteration’ is a word that is seldom used, except by Meghan, who has an affinity with it going back to the days of her two blogs. Friends of hers were also quoted in People magazinedisparaging those who disagreed with her plans as ‘naysayers’ and ‘spiteful’ because the palace were insisting on a twelve month trial period. This, her ‘friends’ alleged, was because they were punishing her and Harry for wanting their freedom.
To people in the know, the Sussexes’ statement was not only disrespectful but riddled with inaccuracies. It was misleading on virtually every point it made, and there was a strong suspicion that it had been created to boost Meghan and Harry in America without a care to the unfairness of the claims or the potential damage it could do to the monarchy in Britain. Firstly, Harry and Meghan’s assertion regarding their royal highness titles was unequivocally wrong. While technically remaining royal highnesses, they had been banned from using that title. It was not an elective on their part. They no longer had the right to use what they referred to as their ‘HRH prefix’ either formally or informally. Patently, the distinction between the meaning of the words technical and formal had been lost on whoever composed the statement, but the reality was that while they formally retained the titles they had technically ceased to have the right to use them.
As for their assertion that the Monarchy and Cabinet Office did not have international jurisdiction over the use of the word royal insofar as it applies to the British Crown and all businesses registered in or linked to the United Kingdom, this was not only factually inaccurate but was perceived in Britain as being an impertinent and unwarranted challenge to the right of the Crown to maintain its purity. The idea that members of the British Royal Family could be challenging the legal means whereby the British Royal Family ensures that no one abuses their royal status by restricting everyone’s right to the use of the word royal, was viewed as beyond belief. There is a raft of legitimate and legally binding legislation such as the Companies Act of 2006 which specifically gives the Secretary of State for Business jurisdiction over royal names for ‘any type of business’. This backs up the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883, which protects all royal trademarks. The USA and Canada were but two of the many nations which signed the convention, in 1887 and 1923 respectively, so any attempt by the Sussexes to claim that they had the right to use the word royal without the permission of the Crown would fall foul of trademark laws internationally.
Canada, being a country whose Head of State is the Queen, is also subject separately to rules governing the use of the word royal, and all requests to use the designation royal have to be addressed to the Governor-General’s Office at 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa. This made further nonsense of Harry and Meghan’s claims that they had the right to use their Sussex Royal brand internationally. Their further assertion that they would nevertheless indulge the British Crown in its petty refusal to allow them to market themselves under their Sussex Royal brand might have seemed like magnanimity in the United States, but in Britain it was seen as the pretentious
