Royal crown

Queen shut down Harry and Meghans Royal Sussex trademark attempt

By James Wan

What you need to know (in a nutshell)

  1. Queen Elizabeth II has limited control and power, with her main role being the head of state and her powers being mostly symbolic.
  2. The recent decision to strip the Duke and Duchess of Sussex of their “Royal” titles and branding rights has raised questions about the future of the British monarchy and its role in society.
  3. The use of “Royal” and associated terms such as “queen” or “majesty” are legally protected and imply that the royal family has endorsed a product or company. This decision has implications for the Sussexes’ future branding and potential business ventures.

Full Article

Queen Elizabeth II’s protection of swans and royal titles is well known, but few realize just how important they are to British culture. I experienced this first-hand when joking with an English friend about making my children call me honourable mother instead of mommy; her immediate reproach that she was the Honorable Jane Doe made it clear that such traditions are taken very seriously across the pond. My American perspective had been looking at Japanese honorifics like san or sama, not realizing their importance in Britain until faced with a stern reminder from my friend - titles aren’t something you joke around about over there! It highlighted just how deep these customs go into British society and reinforced why Queen Elizabeth is so protective of them both within U.K.’s borders and beyond its shores

Queen Elizabeth II’s decision to not allow the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to continue using their regal nomenclature marks a significant break between them, with potentially damaging consequences for the monarchy. This comes after Prince Harry made his request last week while carrying out the final royal duties that people address him as “Harry” instead of ‘Prince’.The dispute began in January when Harry and Meghan announced they would be stepping back from official engagements within the monarchy but still wanted some kind of progressive role - something which was immediately rejected by Her Majesty. As things stand now, it appears there will be no compromise or return; they have been effectively demoted into plain aristocracy rather than royals almost overnight without any real explanation about what this means going forward other than Prince Harry can’t use His Royal Highness title anymore - he’ll either need to go by His Grace or just rely on being known simply as ‘Harry’!

The Queen recently vetoed the move by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to trademark “Sussex Royal” for use on products from consulting services, counselling sessions, to T-shirts. This is because words such as ‘Royal’ and other associated terms that denote connections with royalty are heavily regulated in Britain due to their implications - implying endorsement and approval even when one has not been granted or given. An example of this can be seen with Fortnum & Mason’s ‘Royal Blend Tea’, which they have legally used since 1902 after it was enjoyed by King Edward VII; additionally, they also hold two royal warrants indicating ongoing good favour among the monarchy. It appears then, that you cannot lay claim over a word like ‘royal’ if you no longer bear any connection – however indirect – within its sphere: just like how someone who wishes to set up a bank needs legal authority before beginning business operations similarly so must an individual demonstrate some relation between themselves and being deemed worthy enough for using these sensitive terms.

Yet beyond questions surrounding rebranding opportunities,it brings into focus larger issues about what lies ahead concerning British Monarchy itself.

In the past, English kings and queens had considerable autonomy to make sweeping decisions - such as ordering rivals’ beheadings or starting new religions – with little restriction. Nowadays however, their role has become much more limited in scope; they do not require a passport or driver’s license and are exempt from paying taxes unless they choose otherwise (which Queen Elizabeth II began doing voluntarily in 1992). Although still titularly head of state, Parliament effectively governs under the illusion that power was handed over to ministers by her majesty. The primary purpose of today’s monarchy is therefore an embodiment of long-held inequalities which strangely enough captivates people across different countries who believe all should have equal rights yet find this appealing for some reason; it appears these values resonate even among Americans whose founding document states ‘all men are created equal. This can be seen through how almost 30 million viewers tuned into Harry & Megan’s wedding while survey data showed 82% held favourably towards Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

It’s no surprise that seven in ten people living in Britain view themselves as monarchists and show their support for the royal family. However, a quarter of British 18-24-year-olds would like to see this change before the end of Her Majesty’s reign; whilst citizens from Commonwealth countries currently remain loyal supporters overall. The English peerage has been losing its special privileges since 1999 when most were excluded from sitting within House Lords - thus weakening any direct connection with power or money which could have contributed to them still being viewed as glamorous figures today.I am personally qualified to speak on such matters having become viscountess myself several years ago without many taking notice – even after legally changing my name! If only I had more funds available or perhaps lived elsewhere than Somerville, Massachusetts then maybe people’s attention would be drawn towards me differently. To gain recognition for one’s title requires certain social privilege commands; something my friend Jane Doe recently reminded me of after she noticed how someone addressed me as a ‘Hon’ instead despite it not actually being accurate anymore - although at least they got part right…

Queen Elizabeth, who has devoted her life to preserving the monarchy and carrying out its duties with dignity and resistance to change as an unimpeachable representative of Great Britain’s proud past, may have recognized that granting unrestricted freedom for Prince Harry and Meghan could lead not only a financial exploitation of their royal status but also set off a backlash against the Crown. For nearly seven decades she has worked hard at fulfilling all expectations associated with royalty; therefore It’s within her prerogative if she chooses to protect this institution by revoking certain titles from Harry & Meghan - after all, long live Queen!