The news that the Sussexes have disposed of their UK staff - including a few longtime employees who worked with Harry before he met Meghan - has raised questions about whether they will ever again spend significant time in Britain, at least as a couple.
It was also raised questions about their commitment to "kindness", since many of their new hires had given up other jobs to sign on with the Sussexes, and the staff have been busy defending Harry and Meghan to the media as recently as this week, according to the Daily Mail.
"Meghan up to her old tricks again - getting rid of people no longer of any use to her," Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter. "I've met some ruthless operators in my time but she's something else."
(Watkins produced some truly awful social media, although it's hard to know how much of it was his work and how much of it can be traced to the Duchess' "input". Anyway, good luck on that job hunt.)
However, they are still working to arrange the Sussexes' final appearances in Britain in March, when Harry is scheduled to attend the Mountbatten Festival of Music at the Royal Albert Hall (His last engagement as Captain-General of the Royal Marines - will he wear his uniform for the last time?) and a joint appearance at the Commonwealth Day service on March 9.
Were the Sussexes told that, as ex-Royals, they would be required to pay for their own staff in London, including the expensively-hired Sarah Latham?
The Sussexes seem short on dough, whatever they may be up to with JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, although I have a hard time believing the figures that have been thrown around about possible "deals" with those banks.
The only thing the Sussexes really have to offer those banks are their contacts, and over the past three years they've cut off or annoyed many of the people who might have been useful to the bankers.
What do you think of the Sussexes' staff moves?
It was also raised questions about their commitment to "kindness", since many of their new hires had given up other jobs to sign on with the Sussexes, and the staff have been busy defending Harry and Meghan to the media as recently as this week, according to the Daily Mail.
"Meghan up to her old tricks again - getting rid of people no longer of any use to her," Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter. "I've met some ruthless operators in my time but she's something else."
Redundancy packages
Most of the staff are currently negotiating redundancy packages, including new hires like David Watkins, the social media manager the Sussexes hired away from Burberry.(Watkins produced some truly awful social media, although it's hard to know how much of it was his work and how much of it can be traced to the Duchess' "input". Anyway, good luck on that job hunt.)
However, they are still working to arrange the Sussexes' final appearances in Britain in March, when Harry is scheduled to attend the Mountbatten Festival of Music at the Royal Albert Hall (His last engagement as Captain-General of the Royal Marines - will he wear his uniform for the last time?) and a joint appearance at the Commonwealth Day service on March 9.
All about money?
It's hard not to wonder if the sudden layoffs - and the Sussexes' apparent retreat from having a presence in the UK as well as North America - have something to do with finance.Were the Sussexes told that, as ex-Royals, they would be required to pay for their own staff in London, including the expensively-hired Sarah Latham?
The Sussexes seem short on dough, whatever they may be up to with JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, although I have a hard time believing the figures that have been thrown around about possible "deals" with those banks.
The only thing the Sussexes really have to offer those banks are their contacts, and over the past three years they've cut off or annoyed many of the people who might have been useful to the bankers.
What do you think of the Sussexes' staff moves?
Comments
Those two would be on the wish list of billionaire business leaders to play a starring role at the World Economic Forum in Davos:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bankers-gold-rush-fly-meghan-21525652
Option 1: it is true and I wouldn't pay to attend one of their speeches.
They are not role models, they have nothing to show, no skills.
Billionaires may be happy to meet a member of the BRF.
Wealthy people may think it is funnier to be gently lectured by those 2 than someone else who would be qualified to discuss climate change.
Option 2: PR PR PR. As for the Oscars, she says she got an invitation but it would be boastful to accept it (=she wants to make that speech, she is waiting for an invitation).
Option 3 : PR PR PR : she is furious because she can't use "royal" any more but she wants to save her face (she doesn't care, she doesn't need the Firm to make some good deals).
@ Louise : I don't think about a legal matter. Obviously, HMQ would not take them to the Court.
You don't see how HMQ could enforce that decision. Me neither but HMQ does (dirty laundry? money? connections? reputation? official statement? Thomas? Doria? something (bigger) we don't know?.....)
🐛
So I think an annulment announcement is coming soon and next? No. I don’t.
I’m interested to see that you are interested in my thoughts and opinions though... thanks, I guess?
It very clearly states, ‘including overseas companies’, that means everywhere outside and including the UK. 🙄
MavisMather, Poverty Britain, United Kingdom, 56 minutes ago
If true. Well done your Majesty and fair play to you for giving these two one in the eyes. They have no right to use the words royal or Sussex. Now, please remove their Dukedom which I think the Queen Will. Just call yourself MiMi and Hags for the website and or MummyMummygivememymoney!
Love this bit of the DM comment. 🤣😂🤣
IMHO - yes. Let us reflect back to the original Megxit agreement. The Queen allowed the couple to keep the HRH styling as it IS Harry's birthright. HM asked that If they were not going to be working royals, that they not use the styling. Someone did not listen, as Sussex Royal steamed along. So the ban goes public - you cannot use the term royal in your commercial enterprises, as it infringes on the Queen's own intellectual property. There is only one crown, one court, one royal: HMTQ. Everyone in the RF revolve around her. The Firm revolves around her. The tourism revolves around her, and her family, and the history. No one will be allowed to impinge on this fact.
IF the couple persists in using Sussex royal and HRH, all it will take is a statement from HMTQ that that the couple agreed to the terms of Megxit. This broad side across the bow will tell these two that the titles and HRH will go away if they persist. If they wish to known as Prince and Princess Henry of Windsor, so be it. They started it.......Shades of 1936..........
US service men and women won't respect Harry&Ho. An entitled p#$$y whipped formerly royal millionaire is irrelevant. Military friends are USA a the way. Don't mention NATO unless you want an earful. They still complain about British commanders having tea on the beach during D-Day. If H&M will have to serve free beer or other enticement to get US military to show up to hear them blab.
The queen should have shut down Sussex Royal and the private pr immediately. Better late than never.
CDAN also had a post about a female celebrity going bald from wearing wigs and doing drugs. I thought H&M may be members of the hair club!
Didn't realize there were 2 Tolkien trolls. Perhaps one is you know who. She may look like gollum with the yak wig off.
We are all here for some laughs and escape. Thanks Nutty! I have also learned a lot here.
"Palace officials have acknowledged for some time that they are reviewing Harry and Meghan's use of Sussex Royal brand, now they are quitting. but they have not yet confirmed a report tonight that the couple are banned from using the word royal. ....
A royal source says: "as Duke and Duchess of Sussex are stepping back as senior members of the Royal Family and will work towards financial independence, use of the word "Royal, in this context, needed to be reviewed. Discussions are still ongoing".
The headlines on TMZ website :
https://www.tmz.com/2020/02/18/meghan-markle-prince-harry-drop-royal-sussex-brand-queen-elizabeth/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8018137/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Queen-loves-Harry-Meghan-stand-firm.html
1. Their IG account is sussexroyal and they use a coronet in their logo. They won't want to start that all over again and spend a whole lot of money buying followers. As it is they have been scraping the barrel trying to keep it going in the past few months when they have had no official public appearances. Starting again could be an opportunity though and maybe they are working on that. They have no connection with Sussex anyway, so if I was them I would ditch it along with the Duke and Duchess (how important is that to Meghan?), but then what would they use? H&M? Isn't that a department store? M&H? Sounds like a confectionery.
2. Their website has the same problems as described above.
3. They have trademarked and copyrighted and claimed dominion over anything and everything sussexroyal. It would take a lot of work and cost a bit to start all over again.
4. Their foundation is Sussex Royal The Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It has taken them months to set it up (and that process is not complete), so they will not want to start again, although they do seem to be hoovering up whatever donations and fees they can in the meanwhile.
Nope, the Queen will be manipulated into letting them keep the royal along with the logo, no matter how tacky their business affairs get. What she can do is put out a statement that makes it very clear that they do not represent the monarch in any way whatsoever. Maybe a BP team is already working on that. If not, she will regret it along with her son and grandson because the Sussexes have just begun in terms of causing damage. Your Maj, do not believe what they say (e.g. as in their manifesto) but at what they do.
>>>If Harry and Megan divorce, someone is going to gain custody of Archie, correct? Archie *should* be returned back to the UK due to the line of succession (he should never have left really, nor Harry), but if Megan gains custody, we know that's not going to happen.<<<
There should be no assumption if a divorce it is either Meghan OR Jarry should get custody. It would make sense to have joint custody. The line of succession is not the primary determining factor in custody IMO. Even if the Order discussed the other day is not per se based on succession but rather if the Monarch feels they need to step in and take control of raising any grandchild as hpp[ened in the 1700's.
>>>My thought is this:
1. Archie isn't of the blood. That negates him across the board. The BRF know this but haven't spilled that secret yet. They are using it as leverage.<<<
Then if he "is not of the blood" then he is not in the line of succession. Of what difference does it make then if the BRF knows and obviously Meghan knows. Leverage for what if he is not in the line of succession. To pretend to Meghan Archis is in line when they both he is not a legitimate heir.
>>>2. If H & M divorce, the BRF can petition to gain full custody of Archie for Harry and both can return to the UK (with Archie in his father's custody - not the Queen's). The law I was quoting was a means to try and make it more "official" or give grounds for why they can petition for Archie's return to the UK with Harry (again, if they divorce). Otherwise folks might wonder why Megan is giving up her kid.<<<
First,if there is no reason to intervene (as the law was trying to protect for grandchildren at risk) the Monarch would have no standing to petition for custody. Then it can only be a grandchild (currently Archie is not the Monarch's grandchild). It would have to be Charles, as a Monarch to intervene if circumstances warrant it. The Order was to be used for specific extreme circumstances and any atty worth their salt (and surely Meg would have the best) could overcome some fake power play even by the Monarch.
There, an International law of which both the US, UK and Canada are signatories too that may come into play for couples divorcing in different countries. But if there was a divorce I would think that both Harry and Meghan would be living in the same country and as residents, then that country's laws would apply.
>>>3. If Megan kicks up a fuss or causes drama, they simply threaten to expose the whole truth about Archie's "birth" etc.<<<
I don't think any exposure of Meghan having a child by surrogacy would mean anything at all. I assume Harry knows. Then too I assume both Harry and Meg has legally adopted Archie so what would it matter. I can think if the BRF tries to shame Meghan for the surrogacy then (assuming Harry knew too) she would be in no worse position than Harry.
>>>I am not expecting the Queen to command someone to grab Archie and drag him back to the UK. Can you imagine the optics that would present? I'm suggesting that they can use that law as grounds for a reason *why* Archie needs to return to the UK with Harry and why Harry needs to have full custody of the child<<<
The law would only serve a purpose if Archie was a bilogical child born of the body and if in divorcing Harry and Meghan were acting in a manner that was of severe concern to the Charles and he attempted to get custody. However as other posters have commented it is was an old law enacted for a specific reason at the time. Courts look not to just the letter of the law but to the intent. I would doubt a modern court would allow that law to supercede parental rights unless they were unfit parents (then current laws do that anyway).
continued
>>>This is all, of course, in light of the fact that Archie was never carried by Megan and is not her biological child<<<
Again. unless Meghan somehow committed fraud on Harry, why would she suffer for a surrogacy other than Archie wouldn't be a rightful heir. But wouldn't Harry know it was a surrogacy? Regardless of whether they divorce or not, Archie is born via surrogacy is not entitled to be an heir to the throne. But in practicality, it is unlikely he would ever become King at the rate things are going. It might take William another 20 years to become King, then he has three children to stand to inherit. If George or his siblings have children that would push Archie way down the line. For example when Peter Philips was born he was 5th in line, now he is 15th in line to the throne.
Please excuse Nutties if there are typos but my eye is bothering me and I have a hard time seeing right at times. like now. Also please excuse this lenghtly response but I di not want to ignore @Bravura request for response.
"The Queen is actually governed by several pieces of legislation, including the Trade Marks Act 1994 and even the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883.
The Sussexes have not picked a fight with the Queen but with the law of the land."
Regarding Harry, depends on his DNA. If he has Harry's royal DNA, the crown will probably support custody. If not, I doubt it. Any irregularities in parentage will come out in any custody fight.
This popped up on Twitter. Wonder if M or H is pushing the divorce. If H, he may be playing along with the crown to dump you know who.
https://www.ibtimes.com/prince-harry-meghan-divorce-rumors-queen-elizabeth-concerned-about-possible-split-2923561?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true
I have just had a look at the DM exclusive.
Way to go Your Maj!
Meghan must be pulling out whatever hair she has left, Harry must be weeping in his beer ... and I hope the owner of the house has insurance for breakages!
Considering the Andrew scandal, which was looming for years before it actually broke, Meghan and Harry are so consumed by navel gazing that they really did not think things though nor get the good advice.
That favourite tarot reader is so accurate sometimes that she is scary!
Some anagrams for Sussex Royal:
Assure Sly Ox
Aye Slurs Sox
La Sexy Sours
Orals Sexy Us
Solar Sexy Us
Royals Sex Us
(the LAX ones aren't so great, but . . . LA airport code)
Lax Rues Soys
Lax Ryes Sous
Lax Sues Rosy
Lax Uses Rosy
Lax Yes Sours
Ass Ex Sourly
(these aren't great, but . . . USA)
Usa Slyer Sox
Usa Lyres Sox
Usa Less Oryx
La Sex Rosy Us
Say Ex Slur So
A Sex Sly Or Us
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8018043/Queen-BANS-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-using-Sussex-Royal-brand-cost-thousands.html
,
Soya Sex Slur. Vegan/eco friendly!!
No more HRH.
No more sussexroyal.
No more image-boosting royal appearances.
No more freebie home on a royal estate.
Taxpayer funded security is being discussed.
But, Harry still has the Trust Fund money ...
Meghan is probably low on funds. She may have to settle for a lower settlement offer than desired.
How about HaM?
MaH makes no sense.
What about just Me&Ha?
You really want to go back to meghanmarkle don't you? What happens to Harry then? And how many supporters do you actually have? And what exactly is your branding, because on your website (that which must be renamed), there is a lot of 'royal' stuff.
https://conversationsofasistah.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/meghan-wedding-dress-549x474.jpg
https://mobile.twitter.com/tmz/status/1229933625874898945
@Happy Days said:
"Name for Meghan’s scented candle: Smells Like Harry’s D!ck"
Oh, that made me gag in between laughing!! Oh, lordy, and maybe an air freshener a la "Aroma de Testicle". With a Ginger Yak hair body scrub and a Meg-sweat scented soap.
LOL!! I like La sexy sours!
Hilarious!
Wonder where Nutty is. She is going to freak when she see’s what has been going on with the blog. People cussin, sayin “bad” words, fighting. with each other and just actin’ all sorts of crazy.....like when the teachers steps out of the classroom and the students go berserk!!!!!
Right? Are we 5 now, or what, Gollum (plural)?
But how petty would that look if they ignored the Queen? The Harkles have nothing to offer and their recent poor behaviour can't be ignored by anyone. If HRC ends up running for VP, she can't afford to upset the Queen. The Harkles don't have any skills to transfer to any businesses. If Harry actually did pass all the things required to fly a helicopter, why didn't he do something similar to William and work with one of the rescue services. The Harkles wanted out but wanted to keep the perks. It doesn't work that way. Cut them completely free as they wish to be independent including stopping all the finances. I think the world is watching and the people who the Harkles wish to align with won't want to upset the Queen.
Photo OPS IMO so that Scotland Yard protection officers can't claim they're sent on errands like picking up royals and they're treated like skivvies.
Usual Sussex's narrative after being caught behaving as Divas 2.0: we are very normal-happy people, we like to do our own thing, but paparazzi harassed us ...
Their privacy was more protected in the UK.
I AM CHORTLING, CHORTLING!!
Oh, it was pissed that I said Diana’s wedding day was glorious. I mean, seriously? I can’t say that without ticking someone off??? Those of us “of a certain age” remember that day fondly (until we found out the truth) and it was a glorious day. So many people outside with those weird viewers etc, the queen mum, Margaret, whether Diana’s dad would be able to walk her down the aisle. When she got out the carriage and it was windy and OMG the train never ended, when she flubbed the vows and everyone wondered if it mattered. The day was iconic.
I better shut up before I summon them...
Very proud of Her Majesty today. Not only was this the right thing to do, but she waited for the right time to do it, as well.
Great day.
Harry’s pain will be worse, can you imagine the tantrums madam is throwing right now...
He could always write a book, Meggie and Me a dogs life..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8018137/ROBERT-HARDMAN-Queen-loves-Harry-Meghan-stand-firm.html
Meghan did not do her research or she is so arrogant that she thought she could just do whatever she wants and get away with it. Messy!
By the way, Harry is looking very happy lately. Something is going well with him ...
In the most refined, educated, cultured, polished, and modern way, this celebrity couple reacted to a proposed change to their branding.
The reaction was basically, “What the f*ck? What the actual f*ck?!”
So if you read something about how they have accepted the change, roll your eyes.
They have definitively NOT accepted this change. They are furious beyond belief!!! This will cost them millions of dollars. They have sunk a lot of money into two-word branding, websites, trademarks, logos, etc. They are asking their attorneys if they have legal standing to fight.
Their rationale for fighting?
The word [redacted] is already being used on towels, on liquor, and on soda brands! They think they should be able to use the word the way they want to.
Maybe. However, fighting the husband’s family on this could potentially make a bad situation even worse!
It is possible that if they even signal that they are going to fight for that one word, the family could withdraw permission for the second word as well.
Meaning… they could have certain titles taken away from them and have both words of the trademark challenged.
Since the titles are pretty much all they have left, they might want to quit while they are behind. Better to settle for half than none?
Perhaps their time would be better spent coming up with a new brand.
In between all that yoga, of course.
Did the family do the right thing? What should the couple do?
Once I understood the nature of the HRH title and what it means to be "royal" anything, it seemed to me that legally it would no longer be appropriate to continue using it but was just hoping to be right. ha.
Look, I would be more than happy to be wrong but unless there is something that is legally enforceable in North America, Markle could very well ignore it. She has proven time and time again that she has no respect for anyone or anything.
RE: Archie’s citizenship
From US State Dept. website:
“A person born abroad in wedlock to a U.S. citizen and an alien acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person’s birth for the period required by the statute in effect when the person was born (INA 301(g), formerly INA 301(a)(7)).
“For birth on or after November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years prior to the person’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of 14.
I never knew there was a residency requirement for the US citizen parent. Not sure how the 5 yrs is interpreted: consecutive years, etc. the lawyers here might know.
That is an interesting perspective. However, I do think that living in the USA would not make the Harkles immune from prosecution in the UK. They use a digital platform (IG account and website) and that has a global reach. So, there is nothing stopping them from opening a 'Sussex Royal Fish and Chips' restaurant in the USA, but British law can have jurisdiction over them if they use Sussex Royal on their IG account, website, foundation and all online merching.
I don't know why Harry looks so happy because the whole affair has become very messy. Maybe he has brokered some good deals for them under the branding 'Prince Harry'?
If Markle continues to use the Sussex Royal name, the RF could try to retaliate in some other way but they had better act quickly because she is already profiting from the name and if this drags out and she makes several million on the name, she may no longer care what the RF does.
Not just that the Queen is"... bound by the laws of the land" ... "but it is about protecting the public from fraud and misrepresentation."
That last part helps take the shot out of the country as well as it clearly mentions overseas.
Oh man, that article is a good read. Quite the shot out of the dark if you haven't been reading the details (or your advisors aren't either because they want to see you as successful with this name).
I do like the idea of the BRF not making a deal about the origins of Archie for the time being. As Elle has pointed out, they are masters (of the universe IMO) at not leaving fingerprints when facts emerge.
Tatty - sleeping. Nice none response after the fact.
CatEyes - sad to hear your brother is still out there. Are the post marks on the envelopes the same city or do they vary?
And, I am still wondering what the state of their filing for 2019 taxes is.
I think the divorce clock is fully ticking now. What use is Harry to Meg at this point?
Perhaps when and if Meg can secure an honorary doctorate from some university, she can also ask them to make her an honorary royal? lol
If you're going to do work with the Harkles, not only do you get non-royals, you get people who chose to quit being royals. They gave it up.
Not necessarily the most bankable of couples.
Just thinking of how aggressive and arrogant the Harkles were in rolling out their website and demands, this result feels all the better.
They wanted to be commoners, they get to be commoners.
Meghan - before Harry:
1. Cannot honor her important life commitments, two failed marriages..
2. Abandoned her Internship in South America
3. Apparently lived a hedonistic lifestyle for years.
4. Mediocre success in her chosen profession.
6. Heartless treatment of her devoted and adoring Father.
7. Bogus claims of profound humanitarian work.
8. Alleged promiscuity per alleged "yachting activities'.
9. Actively looked for rich husband without regard to wholesome traits for a meaningful relationship.
10. Her career success consisted of being a sex object ('hot girl').
11. Denied her ethnicity for most of her life,
12. Never owned a home, not even a mobile home.
Harry - before Meghan:
1. Remedial Intelligence
2. Lack of higher education.
3. Life of a playboy till middle age.
4. Military career was limited.
5. Was not self-supporting.
6. He became infamous for his prejudicial acts and unsavory behavior.
7. Never pursued a formal education after his earlier failed attempts when young.
Harry & Meghan together:
1. HAMS demanded an expensive wedding despite it being Meg's 3rd wedding.
2. They took taxpayer funding for a house they allegedly never lived in,
3. Meghan was disrespectful in ignoring protocol numerous times.
4, Harry could not honor the BRF rules against commercial activity *ie. Disney solicitation for voice-over work).
5. They were slovenly in their appearance on may occasions.
6. They appeared under the influence at public events.
7. They plotted behind the back of the Queen to leave.
8. They wasted taxpayer monies on their Frogmore home.
9. They ignored the Queen's request not to use their HRH titles.
10. They are freeloaders even tho they say they want to be financially independent.
11. They skipped out on their royal duties.
12. Harry has shown no visible interest in his ill Grandfather.
13. They have sued the media for questionable reasons,
14. They come across as hypocrites.
15. Meghan appears to be a diva and difficult to work for.
16. They have been banned by the Queen to use Royal Sussex.
All in all the Harkles seem to have questionable character, low morals, lousy work ethic, poor interpersonal skills, untrustworthiness, sef-centered, ruthless, unkempt and erratic...so these and many others are so much more important for Companies to consider than "just upsetting the Queen".
https://blindgossip.com/wtf-branding/
Louise
Here it is again:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8018043/Queen-BANS-Prince-Harry-Meghan-Markle-using-Sussex-Royal-brand-cost-thousands.html
Start reading just under the photo of H,M&A while seated at the meeting with Tutu. It specifically covers out of GB there and is some parts just above (look for Paris).
Did "The Firm" purposely slack plenty of rope so that the Sussexes would feel complacent and arrogant enough to show themselves with the blatant commercialism and money-making endeavors? Were they tacitly allowing Harry & Meghan to overplay their hand to the point where it would be untenable for them to market the royal moniker?
Or... Did the Sussexes just get too greedy with the terms (and bent the rules as Meghan is wont to do) which inevitably led to a 'crossing of the Rubicon?'
Y'all are so creatively funny--Teasmade and Happy Days--my sides are splitting! Re candles and anagrams, would this Harry scented candle be a wickless candle, by chance! Yours truly...Crumpet aka an unknown at the moment!
Your avatar looks great!